Overall

Three main issues were top of mind among participants in these two locations in the first two weeks of March: pipelines, interest rates, and COVID-19.

The most common and detailed mentions concerned pipelines, including ongoing controversies around their construction, and the Wet'suwet'en protests and blockages in particular. On the broader issue of pipelines, a number of participants felt that they had seen or heard recent news concerning court cases and new legislation related to pipeline projects, as well as efforts being made by the federal government to get these kinds of projects underway. In regard to the Wet'suwet'en protests and blockades, which came up as an issue in all groups, many said that they were aware of the federal government getting involved in the negotiations with the community’s leadership to resolve the dispute. A few also felt that some action was being taken to remove the blockades of rail lines, or least had been promised recently by the federal government.

Many participants also mentioned recent cuts to interest rates. Some attributed this decision in Canada to the earlier rate cut in the United States. Most felt the rates had been lowered to stimulate the economy and stabilize the falling stock market. Some felt that it had also been intended to protect homeowners.

COVID-19 came up too but it was not yet dominating discussion as it would later in the month A few felt that it had caused disruption to the economy and stock market and that had prompted the cut in interest rates. A number of participants mentioned seeing some recent news conferences from government about the virus, including a recommendation to members of the public to stock up on food and other supplies. Participants also mentioned evacuations and quarantines of Canadians in Asia or on cruise ships. Some (unprompted) offered these as positive examples of government actions, while other felt that the government was not doing or communicating enough on these issues.

Teck Frontier Mine Project (Richmond)

Few in Richmond had heard about the Teck Frontier Mine project in Northern Alberta. Among those who had, some were aware of Teck’s decision to withdraw its application for the project.

Those with knowledge of the project felt that the federal government had contributed in some way to what they viewed as a negative outcome for the economy, though no one offered specifics. Some of these participants also felt that oil prices probably had a lot to do with the decision by Teck, and that the Wet'suwet'en protests and blockades likely contributed as well.

Few felt that delaying the mine was the right decision. Participants were concerned about the negative impact on the economy, jobs and the oil and gas industry. They felt that this latest cancellation did not bode well for the future of the oil industry in Canada, and that the Canadian Government needed to do more to support the industry, for the sake of Alberta, its economy and workforce, and for the sake of the national economy as well.

Wet'suwet'en Protests (Calgary, Richmond)

Awareness and Understanding

There was a fairly high level of awareness of the Wet'suwet'en protests and blockades in these groups. A number of participants commented on the extensive media coverage of events, and most were following the story to some degree, if only through the headlines.

Regardless of their varying degrees of engagement and information, participants tended to view the story in similar ways. They focused on the barricades and disruptions around rail lines and their effects on transportation, economic activity, and livelihoods. Most felt that the issue was an urgent and difficult problem to be solved, aggravating existing concerns about the economy, especially in Alberta.

Many framed the transportation disruptions and barricades as a law and order issue to be dealt with. But many also associated current events with pipelines and Indigenous issues more broadly, and placed them within the context of what they saw as long-standing challenges in these areas as the underlying issue.

Opinions

There were mixed views about the issues most urgently at stake in these events. Many participants were primarily concerned about the barricades and transportation disruptions, which they characterized as damaging to the economy, unfair, illegal and potentially dangerous. Some questioned the motivations of the protesters, referencing stories that they had heard about paid agitators and foreign groups coming into Canada to influence events. A few stressed that approval from the Wet'suwet'en had already been given for the project and questioned the rationale for the protests.

At the same time, many also associated the issue with what they saw as legitimate underlying concerns about consultations with Indigenous communities on pipeline projects. Some referred to what they viewed as poor treatment of Indigenous people by governments in Canada, and a history of failing to deliver on commitments. A few felt that governments had contributed to the problem by pushing too hard and fast to get pipeline projects built. Some questioned whether adequate consultation for this project had taken place with the Wet'suwet'en and if the Nation’s territorial rights were being honoured.

In most groups there was some comment and debate about the legitimacy of the protests, as well. Most felt that barricades and disruptions were simply not an acceptable form of protest, regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying grievance.

Views of the federal government’s response

Most were aware of federal government efforts to address the protests and barricades. In most cases, participants said that they had heard that the Government of Canada was reaching out to the Wet'suwet'en to negotiate a resolution to the dispute. Some said that they had heard about an agreement being reached, others felt that little had been accomplished to date, and some had not heard about any recent developments.

Some also said that they had heard that the government had promised to get the barricades removed, including through police action, but most felt that the federal government had not done enough in this regard, given the persistence of the problem.

Asked for their assessment of the federal government’s response to date, opinions were mixed but tended to be more negative than positive, overall. Some acknowledged the difficulty of the challenges and tasks involved, and felt that the government was making efforts. But most agreed that too little was being done to get the blockades of transportation corridors removed or to negotiate with the Wet'suwet'en and improve consultations, relationships and the approvals process on pipeline projects with Indigenous communities.

Asked what else the Government of Canada should be doing, most felt that removing the barricades was the top priority, separate from the ongoing negotiations with the Wet'suwet'en. While some, especially in the women’s group in Richmond, felt this had to be done carefully or sensitively to avoid escalation or the possibility of violence, most felt the disruptions simply needed to be stopped. A number of participants felt that a more “forceful” or “heavy-handed” response was warranted. Given the perceived impact on the economy and broader population, widespread views that the barricades were illegal, or fears that private citizens might attempt to take matters into their own hands, many supported arrests being made and the barricades being forcibly removed by the police.

A number of participants also felt that the government needed to do more to speed up resolution of the issue with the Wet'suwet'en. Some, again, supported a more sensitive approach, believing that the Wet'suwet'en likely had a valid grievance. Others suggested that the government should “push harder” or “take a harder line”. Some felt that an agreement was already in place and should be honored and that the Wet'suwet'en needed to focus on their own internal issues and politics.

Awareness and Expectations of the Upcoming Federal Budget

There was very low awareness among participants of the upcoming federal Budget. Only one participant said they had read or heard something about it, and they did not have any details.

When asked what they might expect from the federal Budget based on what they knew about the government’s priorities, participants provided mixed responses. Participants in the women’s group felt that the Budget might be focussed on deficit reduction and spending cuts or restraint. Some also felt that it would include measures related to the environment, including energy efficiency, carbon pricing, and carbon emissions reductions. In the men’s group, on the other hand, responses were limited to a few negative comments regarding likely increases in spending and the deficit.

Topics of Focus for the Federal Budget

When asked what they would like the federal government to focus on, participants most commonly said that they wanted to see more support for the Alberta economy, including incentives for growth, tax breaks for small businesses and entrepreneurs, and more investment in innovation, technology and green energy. Some said they wanted to see more vision for the Alberta economy from the federal government and some clear goals and priorities for securing a better future for the province.

Participants also identified social priorities, especially health care and education. Some were concerned about the aging population, others about youth, but there were comments in both groups about the federal government needing to do more to ensure the needs of Canadians are being met. In the men’s group there was a desire for the federal government to contain spending and the deficit.

Exercise: Budget Theme

Participants in both groups were given a list of possible themes for the federal government’s upcoming Budget. They were asked to identify the top two they would most like to see the government adopt, as well as any they felt would be a bad theme for a Budget. The list included the following choices:

• A Climate Budget
• A Budget to Grow the Middle Class
• A Budget to Make Life More Affordable
• A Healthcare Budget
• A Well-Being Budget
• A Budget for Living Within our Means
• An Innovation Budget
• A Budget for Improving Quality of Life

Results below are rank-ordered based on the number of people who selected these themes as their first choice. Overall, A Budget to Make Life More Affordable was the top choice among participants, followed by An Innovation Budget.

TOP CHOICES

A Budget to Make Life More Affordable

Twice as many selected this theme as their number one choice compared to the others on the list, and nearly half of all participants placed it in the their top two. Among those who did, participants said they were extremely concerned about what they viewed as a high cost of living compounded by high rates of unemployment and incomes not keeping pace with inflation in Alberta. Many said it was a tough time economically for the province, overall, and that Albertans were struggling to get by and afford the basics. They described people working multiple jobs and relying on foodbanks or facing unemployment and cutbacks to social security. Most said that life had become increasingly unaffordable to them, especially with regard to the cost of housing. They also expressed broad concern for the welfare of Albertans in general especially those from low income households and vulnerable groups, such as single parents or unemployed oil and gas workers. With regard to specific areas for investment or policy, some wanted to see something done (they did not know what) to address the high cost of housing. Some in the men’s group, including those who had earlier expressed concerns about deficits, also wanted the federal government to see if there was some way to reduce personal income taxes and cover more costs related to health care, such as dental.

An Innovation Budget

This theme was near the top of the list as well, but most selected it as their number two choice. The men were more likely than women to identify it as their number one selection. Those who chose this theme as a priority felt that Canada was not doing enough to invest in innovation, technology, and in related initiatives, industries, sectors and businesses. They felt that there was an innovation gap to close in Canada and an opportunity for the federal government to help Canadian-based companies create jobs, attract investment, and capture more of the global market by focussing on innovation and nurturing growth in related areas. These participants liked the positive forward-looking vision of this theme.

OTHER THEMES

A Budget to Grow the Middle Class

A few chose this theme as their first or second choice, but just as many felt it was a bad idea for the federal Budget. That said, for all but one of the remaining themes, the balance of opinion was negative so this one was viewed marginally more positively. Those who liked this theme felt that it would include policies to address income disparities, and what some described as a widening gap between rich and poor, as well as the high cost of living. Many felt that life had become unaffordable for most people. Some mentioned the cost of housing as a particular issue they hoped would be addressed, some expressed a desire to see some initiatives that would help to address poverty. Some thought that the government might look at ways to reduce healthcare-related costs for the public, as well, as a way of strengthening the middle class. Most viewed this kind of budget as focussing on broad socio-economic issues, including well-being, quality of life, and standard of living. There was some agreement that initiatives to improve healthcare and reduce related costs also belonged in a budget focussed on the middle class. Those who did not like this theme generally disliked the class-based approach. Some felt that it was exclusive and disregarded the needs of the lower income Canadians and households, while a few disliked or were confused by the language and had questions about what “middle class” meant, if anything, in Canada today.

A Healthcare Budget

No one identified this theme as their top choice but a few placed it in their top two. Moreover, health care came up as an important area for federal government investment within the context of discussing other themes. That said, this theme did not elicit much interest, or much discussion, in a positive or negative way. Only one participant felt this theme was a bad idea, while others simply felt that the priority should be placed elsewhere on the kinds of financial and economic issues they assumed would be addressed if the Budget focussed on affordability or innovation, for instance.

A Budget for Improving Quality of Life

While relatively few chose this as their number one choice, compared to the themes above, quite a few identified it as their second choice. Those who liked it felt that it was broad in scope and would likely cover a wide range of important core issues and concerns, such as education and health, cost of living, jobs, incomes, social services, housing, and supports for vulnerable populations. Some felt it was similar in some respects to either growing the middle class or making life more affordable, but more inclusive, and would be focussed on ensuring that everyone had access to a decent life.

A Well-Being Budget

Very few liked this theme and more disliked it. Most felt that it sounded too broad or vague and beyond the scope of government. The few who selected this theme as a top choice liked that it sounded comprehensive and felt that its focus would be on taking care of people, promoting quality of life, and investing in healthcare as well as overall health, including initiatives to promote healthy lifestyles and diets.

A Budget for Living within our Means

More participants disliked this theme than placed it in their top two. Some were confused about who was meant to be living within their means in this budget – the government, citizens, or both. Those who disliked this theme did so either because they felt it sounded paternalistic, as though the government would try to dictate changes to personal spending behaviours, or because they associated it with mediocrity, i.e. giving up and not striving. The few who liked it felt that this theme expressed a common sense approach to fiscal responsibility, and would likely lead to some kind of deficit and debt reduction. Some felt that it might assist Canadians with household financial management or send an important message to Canadians and the importance of living within their means.

A Climate Budget

Very few placed this theme in their top two choices. Many more felt it was a bad idea for the federal Budget. Those who did not like this theme tended to associate it with a price on pollution or a “carbon tax”, which they felt was “redistributing” money from Alberta and their primary industry, toward other provinces or national priorities. A number of participants questioned the environmental imperatives and science concerning anthropomorphic climate change. While others pushed back, describing climate change as a “fact”, most agreed that the focus should be on the economy and jobs, first.

The few women who liked this theme described climate change as a pressing issue. They felt that society needed to change and that government had an obligation to lead that effort. They also believed that the promotion of energy efficiency and innovation in the energy sector were positive examples of the kinds of policies or initiatives that the federal government might pursue as part of a climate budget. In the men’s group, where participants were more likely to dislike this theme, one participant noted, to some agreement, that carbon pricing had been shown to work and was a good way to get the big polluters to reduce their emissions.

Expectations of a Climate Budget

Participants were asked what type of spending and policies they would expect to see in a “climate budget”, if the federal government were to move forward with that theme. The few participants who were more favourable toward this type of budget felt that it would be focussed on carbon pricing, making big polluters pay, and encouraging large businesses to lower their emissions. Some felt that there might be measures to help or encourage consumers to reduce emissions and change their behaviour as well. Among those less favourable toward the idea of a climate budget and carbon pricing, some felt that if the money collected was invested back into the economy and put toward incentives for consumers to purchase solar panels and electric vehicles, for instance, it might constitute a more palatable approach. Indeed, a number of participants expressed support for the idea of diversifying the economy, moving away from the reliance on oil and gas, and providing incentives for businesses and consumers to change their behaviour and invest in innovation and alternative energy. And many felt these goals would fit with a climate theme and have a positive impact on the economy.

Difference between a Climate Budget and an Environment Budget

Asked if they perceived a difference between a “climate budget” and an “environment budget”, most said that they did. While the two themes were widely viewed as similar and interrelated, most felt that an environment budget would cover a wider range of issues and initiatives, and that a climate budget would be more narrowly focussed on climate change, carbon pricing, and greenhouse gas reductions.

Asked if they preferred a climate or an environment budget, most chose an environment budget. Participants liked that it was more all-encompassing. They associated it with a range of issues that they viewed as important, including water quality, environmental clean-up, wildlife protection, and improved human health. Most felt this broader theme was more positive, more broadly relevant, and more relatable, personal and local. By contrast, some felt that a climate budget sounded more nebulous and that issues such as climate change and carbon pricing were contentious, divisive, or off putting for many people.

Expectations of Policies in a Budget to Improve Quality of Life

Participants were asked what type of spending and policies they would expect to see if the federal government were to move forward with a budget focused on “improving quality of life”. Most felt they would be broad in scope, in keeping with the multifaceted nature of ‘quality of life’, and include a focus on the economy and jobs, more support for people living on social assistance, and greater investments in healthcare and education. The high cost of housing was mentioned as a pressing quality of life issue that might be addressed by the federal government. Some cautioned against overspending, however.

Exercise: Relationship between Government of Canada and Alberta

Participants in the Calgary groups were asked to write down on a sheet of paper words that they would use to describe the relationship between the Government of Canada and their province. Most commonly, participants characterized the relationship as misaligned and disconnected, lacking in mutual cooperation and understanding, or adversarial in nature.

With regard to the main issue, participants generally felt that Alberta and its economic imperatives, especially in regard to the oil and gas industry, were being ignored, neglected, or mishandled by the federal government. Many felt that priority was being given to environmental concerns and policies over economic ones for their province, and to the interests of other provinces in “the East”, especially Québec.

Problems with pipeline projects and the Wet’suwet’en protests were brought up as current examples of Alberta’s grievances with the federal government. Equalization payments were also mentioned as a point of contention. Some also referenced a long-standing history, in their view, of disagreements and divisions between Alberta and the federal government as the broader context for current strains.

While some did not share the view, most said that Albertans tended to feel left out, overlooked and unsupported by the federal government. Participants described feelings of resentment and a sense that the federal government did not have Alberta’s best interests at heart. Some described Albertans as feeling hurt, angry, or misunderstood. While many felt that both sides could do a better job of working together, a few, especially in the men’s group, described the federal government as primarily at fault. When asked, all but one participant felt that their province was treated unfairly by the federal government.

Participants had a number of suggestions for the federal government about how to demonstrate that it was in touch with the concerns of their province. Some felt that it needed to be more transparent and accountable in its dealings with Alberta, and do a better job of listening and responding to the province’s concerns. Some wanted to see a better balance between environmental and economic priorities and more support for the oil and gas industry, including getting pipelines built. Changing or eliminating equalization payments was also mentioned.

TMX Pipeline

In addition to the relationship between the Government of Canada and their province, the Calgary groups included discussion of a set of specific issues affecting Western Canada, the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) Pipeline being one of them.

Most participants in these groups had heard about the pipeline. Most had some knowledge of the project and believed that it had been approved and was about to go ahead or already underway. Few felt that the pipeline would be built on schedule however, or that the schedule and timelines were realistic, given the kinds of delays and opposition the project had already encountered. A few in the women’s group felt that the pipeline might not be built at all due to what they viewed as a lack of federal support.

Equalization Payments

Most of the men were familiar with the term ‘equalization payments’, and about half of the women said they were aware of the program. Among those who knew about it, most felt they could describe the program in broad terms. The explanations provided focussed on pooling provincial contributions based on income or GDP and taking money from the ‘have’ provinces and giving it to ‘have nots’.

Most felt that Alberta was being treated unfairly under the present arrangement and that the system should be changed or at least reviewed in light of the province’s current economic circumstances. Due to their lack of detailed knowledge about how the system of equalization payments worked, no one had any concrete suggestions for how it might be changed or improved.

China’s Boycott of the Canadian Canola Industry

When asked, most participants said they had heard something about this boycott. Most did not know any of the details beyond headlines they had seen in the media, but a few felt it was part of a larger diplomatic dispute between Canada and China that was related to the house arrest of a Chinese business executive. A couple of participants in the men’s group said they had heard something about China raising issues with the quality of Canada’s product as well.

Participants were provided with some background on the issue, for clarity, and then asked for their opinion about what the Government of Canada should do. They were given three options to consider:

• Make concessions so that China will buy our canola again;
• Retaliate against China by imposing our own sanctions on their products; or
• Continue to financially support farmers while trying to negotiate a solution with China that does not involve concessions or retaliation.

The two groups were split in their views. In the women’s group, most felt that Canada should continue to negotiate with China, without retaliation or concessions, while continuing to support farmers, which they widely felt to be the safest and most constructive option. In the men’s group, most felt that making concessions was the pragmatic option and fastest way to resolve the dispute and get trade going again.

Orphan Wells

Many had heard about orphan wells in the province and had at least a vague understanding of the phenomenon and the set of issues it had created. For clarity, both groups were provided with the following description:

“Orphan wells are oil and gas wells left behind by oil and gas companies that go bankrupt. Currently there are over 3000 orphan wells in Alberta, and another 94,000 wells are inactive and could become orphaned if more companies close. Orphan wells are potentially harmful to surrounding environments if they begin to leak.”

Most felt this was an important issue to be addressed. Participants believed that these abandoned sites required clean up and posed an environmental and economic cost to the province. Among the environmental risks that were top-of-mind, participants had concerns about toxins leaching into the water and land, negatively affecting human health and well-being. They also had concerns about cattle and agriculture. Many framed this problem as a failure by the oil and gas companies involved to operate responsibly and assume accountability for environmental commitments or agreements with private landowners.

Asked directly about who should be responsible for dealing with orphan wells, most felt that oil and gas companies were primarily responsible. Most also felt that governments had a role to play in creating more effective laws, regulations, and rules to hold companies accountable for clean-up and ensure that bankruptcy did not allow them to walk away from these sites. Some felt that that the landowners involved, including Indigenous communities and private individuals, also had a responsibility to ensure that proper contracts were in place to ensure that clean-up happened.

A few participants said they had heard about actions taken by the provincial government in recent years to attempt to address the problem, either by pledging money for clean-up or rehabilitation or by requiring oil and gas companies to have more capital, insurance, or money put aside for these purposes.

Asked what the federal government could do to reduce or eliminate the environmental risks of orphan wells, some were not sure. A few questioned whether the federal government had a role to play and felt that this should fall to the authority of the provincial government. Others offered a range of suggestions, including creating insurance requirements or enforceable rules and laws that held companies responsible, determining the priority for clean-up based on proximity to water and severity of the risk, or creating incentives for companies to reclaim some of the wells.

Teck Frontier Mine

Many said that they had heard something about the Teck Frontier Mine and were generally aware of the project. For clarity, both groups were read the following description prior to being asked their opinions about the project:

“The Teck Frontier Mine, which was first proposed in 2011, would have been the largest oil sands mine in history if approved by the federal government. This project could have created as many as 7,500 new construction jobs in Alberta, but it would also have been a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and could have challenged Canada’s ability to meet international commitments to reduce carbon pollution. The federal government was scheduled to make a decision about approving or rejecting the project last week, but on Sunday February 23^rd Teck decided to withdraw their application and delay the project.”

Asked why, in their opinion, Teck had decided to withdraw their application, participants identified a range of factors. These included perceived problems with the approval’s process and lengthy decision-making, controversy and delays around industry projects in general, including pipelines, and the Wet’suwet’en protests and disruptions of rail lines across the country. The low price of oil, market conditions, and the financial viability of the mine were also seen as factors, and decisive ones by some. But most participants felt that the company had likely decided that the mine was simply untenable or too risky at this time because of all of the reasons above.

Participants were asked to comment on whether or not, in their view, the federal government had handled the process properly. Opinions were mixed. Many were unsure. Few were following the story closely, and most seemed unaware of specific actions taken by the federal government or the exact role it played in the process. Most, however, thought that the Government of Canada had at least some role to play in Teck’s decision to withdraw its application, if only by influencing some of the contributing factors, such as delays with the approvals, broader issues with pipeline construction projects in the country, and the Wet’suwet’en protests and blockades, in particular. A number of participants, especially in the men’s group, felt the government had not handled these issues properly, which had contributed to Teck’s withdrawal in their view. Some, on the other hand, felt that Teck’s decision probably had more to do with financial or external issues, such as market dynamics and price, than federal government actions or inactions.

Asked how the federal government should react if another oil sands project were to be proposed a year from now, most felt that the government needed to provide more timely approvals, and more certainty, clarity and consistency throughout the process. Most agreed that due diligence and adequate evaluation and consultation were needed, but that the process and timelines involved needed to be “more reasonable”. In the men’s group, a number of participants felt that the federal government needed to do more to support the industry and get these projects underway for the sake of the economy. They also felt that federal action and policies needed to be more pragmatic or realistic about emissions and the need for fossil fuels, and to do more to reduce delays, bureaucratic paperwork, and roadblocks for companies like Teck. By implementing these suggestions many felt that the Government of Canada would show its support for workers in the Alberta oil industry.

Top Federal Priority for Alberta

Of the various issues discussed with these groups that specifically affect Western Canada – the TMX pipeline, equalization payments, Orphan Wells, Teck Frontier Mine and China’s boycott of Canola – participants were asked to select one of them as their top priority for the Government of Canada.

Most felt that the government should focus on TMX or the oil and gas industry in general, including projects like the Teck mine, as the engine of the economy and job creation. Very few in either group felt that any of the others issues on the list compared in terms of importance. A number of participants in the women’s group however, indicated that other issues not on the list were more important, in their view, such as housing and social programs, the economy as a whole, or the development of alternative energy.

News about Coronavirus

All participants had heard about the “coronavirus”, as it was still widely known in the first two weeks of March. Most were highly attuned to the issue and had been following it in the media. Quite a few said they had actively sought out information.

Asked what they had read, seen or heard lately, many noted that the situation was intensifying. Participants said that they were hearing about global spread, death rates going up, high numbers of cases in new countries such as Iran, global projections becoming more dire, and foreign governments imposing stricter measures to try to contain the virus in their countries.

A few described the situation as “scary”, especially among the women, while others felt that the issue was being “overblown” in Canada. There was a notable tendency among some of the men, in particular, to dismiss concerns as media hype and state their belief, up front, that the virus would likely be no worse than the flu. A number of participants, across all groups, noted that the virus seemed to pose a concern for older or unhealthy people, primarily, based on what they were hearing.

In regard to more specific issues, participants said they were hearing about transmission and symptoms, and how to stay safe. Some mentioned that they were hearing more from government officials in Canada talking about local cases and concerns about spread and safety, as well as the need for Canadians to be more careful and prepare. A few noted new measures by the federal government to restrict incoming travel and tighten the border, while others had top of mind concerns about slowness to act in this regard and flights still coming into Canada from China.

In the women’s group in Richmond, which took place in the second week of the month, there was a relatively high level of awareness about the impact of the virus. There were references to cases in the province, and some said they were starting to hear about local impacts or measures, including school closures and travel restrictions. A few mentioned international students being affected, and some noted the negative impacts on trade and tourism, especially in regard to cruise ships and shipping. Some had heard of local events being cancelled. There was also mention of a decline in gas prices, attributed to the impacts of the virus on the economy.

Confusion and Questions

Top of mind, a number of participants mentioned news or rumours about COVID-19 that had raised questions for them. Participants wondered about transmission, in particular, and issues such as the extent to which the virus was airborne, could be contracted through money, and survived on surfaces, as well as whether or not people should be wearing masks as a means of protection. A number of participants also had questions about the accuracy of the numbers being reported about the virus. Some did not trust the numbers coming out of countries like China, in particular, while others were unsure to what extent even governments in Canada were willing or able to provide an accurate picture. Some wondered if governments were playing up the numbers and risk to get Canadians to pay attention, or playing them down to avoid panic. Some mentioned a lack of testing, particularly in the US, which they had heard was skewing the data about infection rates and the true impact of the virus on public health in North America. There were also a few comments about reports, rumours, or “conspiracy theories” that the virus had been developed in a laboratory originally, or that it was mutating and becoming more virulent.

Asked to evaluate the information available about COVID-19, participants had mixed views. Some felt overwhelmed by the volumes of news coverage and stories. Many described inaccurate or sensationalized information circulating online and through social media, in particular. That said, most felt that there were authoritative and trusted sources of information available, providing clear and relevant information. These included media of record versus social media, and, in particular, governments, public health organizations, officials, doctors and scientists. In Richmond, a number of the women felt that officials, such as British Colombia’s provincial public health officer, were doing a good job of providing information to the public.

Information Gaps

While most felt that clear and reliable information could be found from trustworthy sources, many still had questions and concerns about information gaps.

A number of participants said they wanted more transparent and factual information from governments about the spread and severity of the virus and its true risk to public health. Some felt that information was not always being fully shared. Participants had concerns and questions about the use of masks, in particular, and why the public was being advised not to wear them. They suspected this might be less about the efficacy of masks as a protective measure than discouraging public use because of shortages for front-line health care workers. Some wondered whether government officials in Canada were being forthright about this.

Some wanted to know more about what governments in Canada were doing to identify and manage cases, implement quarantines, test travellers, restrict the borders, and bolster preparedness within the health care system. Some said they had heard conflicting information, with governments saying that they were imposing these measures but reports from media, travellers, and others suggesting they were not being implemented.

Information Seeking

Many participants said that they were actively seeking out information about the virus and related issues and developments. These participants were generally looking for core information regarding death rates and cases around the world, information on symptoms, transmission and prevention, and updates from governments and public health officials in Canada and abroad. Some had also looked for information regarding travel, especially for March break, including risks, possible disruptions, and the safety of specific destinations.

Information Sources

Participants were getting their news on the virus from a wide range of channels and sources. This included traditional media, such as CBC and BBC, which participants were accessing via broadcasts and heavily online through media websites, social media feeds, and Google searches and advisories. Key sources also included social media conversations and posts on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit, as well as word of mouth with friends and family, including those living abroad, and information from sources like schools and doctors. Most authoritatively, and especially with respect to proactive searches, participants said they relied on information coming from The World Health Organization, the US Centre for Disease Control, and Health Canada, as well as government and public health officials, and experts such as doctors and scientists.

Seriousness in Canada

When asked about the seriousness of COVID-19 in Canada, most participants expressed moderate to low levels of concern, given the limited number of cases in the country which were all still related to international travel. Many said that the situation in Canada felt safe or under control at the moment. And while most acknowledged that it was bound to get worse, many assumed that the impact would be limited. Participants tended to see the virus as similar to the influenza, posing mild risks to those under 50 or in good health. And they felt that, even if the situation did get worse, Canada would be able to mitigate or manage the impact effectively and more so than in some other countries where the virus had spread.

Many participants tended to think that experts and officials in Canada, who were expressing a relatively high degree of concern, were being overly cautious as part of the effort to contain the spread and get the public to pay attention. Some felt that social media and media coverage were fuelling exaggerated concerns relative to the actual risks. A few described reactions as “hysterical” or “paranoid”.

That said, there were participants in all groups with a higher degree of concern about the seriousness of the issue for Canada, especially in the Richmond groups that took place in the second week of March. These participants felt that the situation was poised to get a lot worse, inevitably. Some felt that the severity of the risk to Canada was being was being downplayed by those with a false sense of security because the virus had yet to spread through community transmission, or by governments wanting to avoid alarm and panicked behaviour. A few expressed concerns about a perceived lax response from government with regard to restricting travel and checking the health of travellers upon their arrival to Canada and felt this would contribute to the severity of the impact of the virus on Canada eventually.

Personal Concern

Similarly, most said they were not that concerned at the moment about their own health or that of their family members. Only a few who worked in travel or healthcare, or had members of their families in these fields, had a heightened sense of concern. In the event that the virus began to spread, however, many said they would be concerned about older parents and other relatives with pre-existing health issues, who they felt were most at risk for severe cases of COVID-19. Otherwise, many expected that most cases would be mild.

Impact on Behaviour and Communities

While few said they were concerned about the risks to themselves, a number of participants said they had changed their behaviours to avoid coming into contact with the virus. Among most, this entailed more frequent hand washing and sanitizing, primarily, and avoiding touching the face. In Calgary, very few had changed their behaviour beyond these measures. Among the women, there were a few who said they had stocked up on some extra food or decided to avoid air travel. But a number of participants, especially among the men, said they were not making any other changes (or any changes at all) because they did not feel at risk.

In Richmond, by contrast, participants had begun to engage in a wider range of precautions. This included, variously, avoiding large gatherings, public places or public transit, cancelling events related to Chinese New Year or other celebrations, eating at home more often and avoiding restaurants, working remotely, changing travel plans, or changing their behaviour in public places to avoid other people.

Participants described quite a few changes that they were noticing in the community. Many were concerned about increased Anti-Chinese or Anti-Asian racism, in particular, and felt that it had become a bigger problem as a result of public reaction to COVID-19. Some participants said they had encountered increased racism, social avoidance and suspicion first hand or toward members of their families. Some mentioned seeing increased discrimination in their workplace toward their colleagues, hearing about it from their friends or family, or seeing it in public exchanges. Most characterized the situation as unfair, but some felt they might be contributing to it by avoiding Chinese restaurants or Asian people because of heightened concerns about infections and transmission associated with China and travel to the region.

Participants felt that social distancing and fears were beginning to affect social behaviour and interactions more broadly, as well. They referenced distancing in public, at work and in stores, people not shaking hands and cashiers avoiding contact. They referenced social events being cancelled. Some felt that social fears and tensions were increasing. A few participants, especially those of Asian descent or with existing respiratory issues said they had become self-conscious or nervous about coughing in public.

Participants also mentioned community changes, such as closures of schools and businesses, and cancellations of sports, public events, and activities.

Economic and Financial Concerns

Participants tended to be more concerned about economic issues than public health ones, overall, as they were beginning to see some evidence of these in their own communities. Participants noted the shutdown of business and economic life as people increasingly stayed home and stopped going out to restaurants, shops, and events. Some said they were also experiencing or hearing about the stock market going down and drops in interest rates and gas prices, in addition to issues related to supply chains, scarcity, panic buying, hoarding and price-gouging.

The sectors or industries that participants felt were currently most affected included small businesses, shops and restaurants, the travel and tourism industry, airlines and cruises, as well as trade and shipping. Some were especially concerned about Chinese-owned shops and restaurants, which they felt had lost a disproportionate amount of business. Were the situation with COVID-19 to escalate, participants tended to feel that a very broad range of sectors, businesses and parts of the economy would be affected by a wide range of cascading disruptions. Participants mentioned house prices going down.

Few said that they had been personally affected financially so far. Some surmised that there might be some short-term affects with regard to the stock market going down or prices going up, but participants were not immediately concerned about these issues, or for their jobs and incomes. That said, many said they would likely become more concerned about their personal finances if and when the virus began to escalate in Canada.

Government of Canada Response

When asked to evaluate the Government of Canada’s COVID-19 response, most participants in these groups were critical. Many felt that the federal government had not done enough to date, especially with regard to tightening the border and restricting travel. Some felt that stronger advisories against travel had been needed, earlier, or that the government should have closed the border to travellers from China and Asia some time ago. A few felt that the government was not doing enough to bring stranded Canadians home, or to screen travellers effectively at airports.

A number of participants said that they wanted to see the federal government take a stronger and more proactive stance on implementing these and other measures to reduce the potential impact of the virus on the country. Some expressed concern about a patch-work approach as different jurisdictions in Canada could adopt varying measures rather than uniform steps based on decisive direction from the federal government. Some also felt that they were not hearing enough from the government about what it was doing, or had planned, to respond to the virus if and when it did start to spread through the community in Canada, including development of a vaccine.

A few participants, however, in each group, felt that the government was getting the balance right, neither over reacting nor under reacting. On the positive side, they noted successful efforts to bring Canadians back from China, and implementing of quarantines among returning travellers and others to contain the virus and reduce the likelihood of spread.

Participants in both groups in Richmond were shown a series of potential concepts for social media videos, from the Government of Canada, communicating various messages about COVID-19 including information about prevention, travel, symptoms and where to go for more information. The video concepts were shown in story board form.

Facebook Video Ads

Participants were shown two potential concepts for Facebook videos. One was focussed on preventative measures such as handwashing, and the other was geared toward travellers; each highlighted symptoms to look for and who to call if they developed any within 14 days.

Prevention video

Participants were generally positive about this video. They felt that the content and message were relevant to everyone and conveyed important information. Participants tended to like the tone and approach. They described it as a “soft” or “gentle” reminder, reinforcing what people already knew. They liked that it was plain, simple and graphic, and focussed on a few key facts. Some liked that it was neutral and not “fear-inducing”. On the more negative side, some felt that the video was a bit boring or ill-suited to social media. They felt that the video would not stand out and would have to be more entertaining or engaging to get noticed on Facebook.

Symptoms after travel video

Participants found this video concept and content less relevant to them personally and to most people, given its focus on travellers. While participants tended to agree that the video conveyed important information, some felt that it was especially suitable for airports or wondered why this message was being communicated just to travellers, when the symptoms applied to everyone. Some felt that the video should provide a telephone for the local public health authority. There was agreement in one of the groups, when the suggestion was made, that the Government of Canada should be mentioned upfront in order to garner attention.

A few felt that this video was also a bit dull and ill-suited to its medium, more so than the prevention video, in their view.

Overall

Overall, participants preferred the prevention video, primarily because they viewed it as more relevant to more people, including themselves, than the travel video. There were some who felt that the execution would have to be more engaging in order to stand out. Most felt that the Government of Canada attribution should be visible at the beginning.

Twitter Video Ads

Participants were shown two potential Twitter videos, also in story board format. These videos were both focussed on information for travellers, with one focussed on travel safety and the other on what to do if falling ill while travelling.

Travel Safety

A number of participants in the women’s group liked this video and felt that it covered important information for travellers. They liked the detail and clarity of the information, including identification upfront of the Government of Canada as the sponsor. On the other hand, a number of participants in the men’s group felt that the video was copy-heavy and conveyed too much information. They felt that it needed to be simpler and more engaging, especially for social media. A few participants also had questions about the content, including why information was not provided about where to access travel advisories, why travel advisories would still be relevant when people were no longer travelling, or why checking for symptoms should begin “when you return” and not while you were away.

Falling Ill While Travelling

Again, some in the women’s group liked this video and felt that it communicated important information for travellers, but even these participants tended to feel that too much information was being conveyed in this video. Some also felt that information was a bit confusing. Questions came up about what it meant, exactly, to “seek medical attention” or not use any form of public transportation.

Overall

Between the two Twitter videos, more preferred the travel safety video. The men tended to dislike both videos; the focus on travellers was not relevant to most, they found the content too dense, and they felt the approach was not especially engaging or well-suited to social media.

In terms of general advice for any video, participants generally agreed that the Government of Canada logo should be presented early to capture attention and communicate the authoritative source of the information. Many felt that the messages and visuals needed to be simpler and stronger and that a prevention video was generally more useful and applicable to most people.

Exercise: COVID-19 Message Testing (Richmond)

Participants were provided with a handout with some potential messages about COVID-19. They were asked to select the two messages that they liked the best, ranked as one and two, and to identify any they disliked or felt were inappropriate.

The handout provided a list of the following messages

• Do your part. Help reduce the spread of coronavirus disease.
• Do your part. Help stop the spread of COVID-19
• Everyone has a responsibility to help protect themselves, their families and others.
• Help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Here’s what you can do to help.
• Help protect yourself and others.
• Prevent, Prepare, reduce the risk.
• We all have a role to play. Here’s how you can help

Overall, participants liked two messages the best, with their number one choice a strong favourite.

The top selection was; ‘Help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Here’s what you can do to help.’ Participants liked this message for a few reasons, including its entreaty for ‘help’, the fact that it was specific about COVID-19, and that it encouraged direct, personal action and suggested that some specific information about what to do was going to follow.

‘Prevent, Prepare, reduce the risk’ was the next message selected by the greatest number of participants, most of whom selected it as their second choice. Very few identified it at as the message that they liked the best. Those who chose this message liked that it was short, simple, and memorable, like a slogan. Others, however, felt that it was possibly too vague or generic and did not make up in simplicity what it lost in clarity by not mentioning COVID-19 specifically.

In the case of most other messages, response was tepid or negative. All were disliked by more participants than liked. ‘Everyone has a responsibility to help protect themselves, their families and others’ was disliked by the largest number of participants, though by a small margin in most cases. There was not a lot of commentary about it, but the tone seemed to be too directive or lecturing, and off-putting for some. The two statements that began with ‘do your part’ were also disliked for the same reason.

‘Help protect yourself and others’ and ‘we all have a role to play’ were generally seen as good messages within the context of COVID-19 but too vague in failing to explicitly mention the pandemic.

Participants in Richmond were quickly asked about a series of miscellaneous issues. These included sources of stress, views about cannabis legalization, and opinions of birth tourism.

Sources of stress

Participants were able to identify a wide range of stressors in their lives, from money, finances and the cost of living, to children specifically, families overall, major life events, and aging. Some mentioned social media. Asked what the federal government might do to help them address some of these stresses in their lives, participants mentioned a national childcare policy, assistance with the cost of housing, support for eldercare, and measures to cap real estate prices.

Cannabis legalization

All were aware of the legalization of cannabis to some degree, and most had issues with some elements of the impact or roll out. A number of participants mentioned being negatively affected by smokers and the smell of cannabis, and subject to health risks from second-hand smoke. Increased crime was mentioned, as well as problems with workplace policies, the licensing of sellers, as well as land use resulting from farmers switching to cannabis crops.

With regards to government measures, participants felt that there should be stronger policies and more clarity around what was permitted or prohibited in regard to consumption and purchase. Some felt that licenses should be issued more broadly and quickly, land use management improved, and clear work-place policies established.

Birth Tourism

All but one participant said that they had heard about birth tourism in Canada. Most felt it was a problem to be solved. Participants identified concrete harms to Canada in allowing this practice, especially increased pressures on and costs for the healthcare system. Many also thought that the practice was unreasonable, an abuse of generosity, and should not be allowed based on principles of fairness.

Most could not see the reason for extending the right of citizenship to non-residents without any connection to Canada, as they saw it.

Awareness and Understanding of Canada Student Loans

There was strong awareness of this program by name among participants. All but one heard of it but most had only very rudimentary knowledge of its specifics, saying primarily that the program offered grants and loans for post-secondary education.

Exercise: Naming the Canada Student Loans Program

Participants were told that the Government of Canada was considering changing the name of the program. All participants were provided with the following list of potential names:

• Canada Student Grants and Loans
• Canada Student Support
• Canada Student Assistance
• Canada Student Financial Assistance

From the list above, participants were asked to identify their first and second choice as well as any names they disliked for the program. The following results are rank-ordered based on number one selections by the largest groups of participants. They are accompanied by explanations provided by those who placed them in the top spot and also include comments regarding dislikes.

Canada Student Grants and Loans was the top choice among participants, who liked the simplicity and specificity of the name. They felt that this succinctly described the program. Some liked the fact that grants were referenced, and felt that they should be referenced first, before “loans.”

Canada Student Financial Assistance was a close second. Participants liked that this name was direct and descriptive. Others, however, felt that it was too ambiguous and less specific than the one referencing loans and grants.

The other two names were widely viewed as too vague. Participants overwhelmingly disliked these names, and only one participant liked Canada Student Assistance. A number of participants felt that the current name was either good, overall, and should not be changed, or was better than most of the new alternatives.

COVID-19 News

There was extremely high awareness of COVID-19 and related events and issues among participants. Everyone was paying close attention to the news.

Most said that they were seeing, reading and hearing about a wide range of issues. Some felt beleaguered or overwhelmed by the pace of events and volume of media coverage. But most were actively looking for information and attempting to stay up to date on new developments in a rapidly changing environment.

Most commonly, participants said that they were paying attention to the increasing numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in Canada, in their provinces and community, as well as globally. This was a focal point for most as key indicators of the magnitude of the virus and its risks and downstream effects on public health, public life, the economy, and daily lives. A number of participants referenced specific numbers that they had seen in the last day or two. And many expressed a high degree of concern with regard to the “jump” in cases in Canada and the United States, especially in the groups held in the last week of the month.

The widespread shutdowns and the new phenomena of ‘social distancing’, house isolation, and quarantines were top of mind as well. Not only were participants directly witnessing and being personally affected by these measures, they were also reading and hearing a great deal about them, including the reasons behind the measures, their importance, the need for compliance, and whether or not these precautions were working, would be sufficient, or were being enforced.

Participants were also attuned to information about symptoms, testing, and what to do if they or a family member became sick, including where to go or who to call, and when to apply measures regarding home-based isolation and quarantines.

The frequency of government communications, press conferences and announcements were also prominently mentioned. Many, if not most, were seeing the daily press conferences being held by the Prime Minister outside his residence, and by provincial premiers and public health officials from different levels of government. A number of participants said that they were tuning in daily to various press conferences and getting their updates and announcements directly from government on the kinds of issues and news stories they were most concerned about.

In regard to specific policies from the federal government participants said (unprompted) that they were hearing about (and very interested in) economic and financial measures, most commonly, especially ones offering support to small business and individuals.

Asked if they were using the term “coronavirus” or “COVID-19”, responses were mixed. Participants were generally aware that “COVID-19” was the new term to refer to the virus. They were seeing more and more of its use in the media and from government and public health officials. But only a few said they were starting to use “COVID-19” instead of the more general and familiar term. Some were beginning to use both names interchangeably, while others were still using “coronavirus”.

Awareness of Federal Government Measures

Overall awareness

Overall awareness of the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada was very high. Most felt that the government was engaged, visible, and active in its efforts to manage the crisis. In terms of specific initiatives being undertaken, participants tended to highlight two key areas of focus: economic and financial initiatives, and measures related to the border and travel.

Economic and financial initiatives

There was widespread awareness that economic relief was being offered by the federal government through a range of initiatives aimed at individuals, employers, and businesses. Participants tended to be up to date on recent announcements and aware that the effort was evolving.

Participants were aware of a number of specific initiatives. Support for small businesses was widely mentioned, including loans and a wage subsidy, which some in the later groups said had been increased to 75%. Most were also aware of initiatives to support individuals who had had lost income because of COVID-19, including expanded Employment Insurance (EI) eligibility and expedited payments. Many had heard that the federal government was in the process of extending benefits further to include those not initially covered, such as self-employed workers and others ineligible for EI. Some had heard about a “child credit” and increase in the HST credit, or about deferrals of taxes, student loan payments, mortgage payments or possibly rents. Most had only superficial knowledge of most of these measures, however, and wanted to know more about issues such as qualification criteria, where/how to apply, or the timing of payments.

In Belleville and Québec City, in the last week of the month, participants were asked if they had heard about the Canada Emergency Response Benefit. Most said that they had. Some were able to describe the program by name alone, and many recognized it on description, but few had all the details, and some had not heard about the program at all. A few in each group knew that the benefit was being provided to those who did not qualify for EI, and that it offered $2,000 per month or $500 per week. Beyond that, most had questions about the details or mechanics of the program. In the Québec City groups, participants tended to be more aware of the program, overall. Some could recall that it required a minimum income of $5,000 from the previous year, that a four-month duration was planned for the payments, or that the amount was taxable.

With regard to the federal government’s overall economic effort, participants were generally aware that the federal government was preparing a significant and comprehensive aid package. Only a few participants mentioned specific amounts, which ranged, over the course of the last two weeks of March, from $10 billion, to $84 billion, to over $100 billion. In the later groups, participants noted that the size of the aid package had been growing rapidly.

Borders and travel

Participants had also heard about measures to close the borders and restrict travel. They tended to be up to date at the time of their group regarding recent developments and announcements. Participants spoke about restrictions on cross-border travel for non-essential reasons, with exceptions being made for commerce, trade, and US citizens (at the time of some of the groups), and some of those measures being revised and tightened.

Many were also aware of measures in place for returning travellers, including screening and home isolation. Some mentioned, unaided, that they had also heard that there were issues with these measures being properly implemented.

In the Québec City groups held at the end of the month, participants were asked directly about obligatory self-isolation for travellers returning from abroad. All said they had heard about this measure. Most said they knew that this was an obligatory or “non-negotiable” directive. Some mentioned that it required absolute adherence, barring those affected from leaving their homes at all, even to shop for food. Some had friends, family or neighbours who were affected by this directive. Nearly everyone felt that there were consequences in place for those breaking the rules, including fines and imprisonment. But in reality, many felt, this measure was operating as an honour system, with little oversight or enforcement.

Sources of information

Like participants in the earlier groups, those in the second half of the month were receiving and looking for information through a wide range of channels, including television and radio but especially online and via social media feeds, search engines, and news aggregators.

Many said that they had begun to pay more attention to their sources of information in the current climate of heightened concern and rapidly changing developments. Participants said that they were looking more to trusted, traditional media sources versus social ones to get access to reliable, current information, and to verify unattributed stories circulating on Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and Reddit. These media outlets included CBC, CTV, CNN, BBC, and CPAC, in the English-language groups, and Radio-Canada, RDI, and TVA in Dieppe and Québec City. A number of participants mentioned special reports and coverage on COVID-19 being offered online and via broadcast from news outlets, which they were checking on a regular basis. Some had downloaded news apps onto their phones.

For the most authoritative information, participants were looking to governments and health organizations, including official communications and websites, as well as leaders, officials and experts who had become a major and closely watched source of information on the pandemic and related events and issues. As mentioned above, many had begun watching daily press briefings from the Prime Minister, Premiers, and public health officials. Participants were hearing or seeing this coverage on television and radio news programs, on social media news feeds and online search results, and they were tuning in to live coverage via news websites and social media links, or searching for video on YouTube, Google, and Apple News.

Confusion and Information Gaps

Some participants said they were overwhelmed by the volume of information and coverage available, and many mentioned that there were unreliable stories circulating both online and off. But most felt that they could get access to clear and reliable information when they needed it, by relying on traditional media and official sources from governments and health organizations. Many had productively searched.

At the same time, many also had some confusion on key issues they were concerned about, and many pointed to gaps in information that they hoped to see filled in at some point by governments to provide a clearer picture of the pandemic and its effects on Canada and Canadians.

Specifically, a number of participants wanted to know about the location of cases in their own community, at local schools, or in particular buildings, so they could understand the risk they faced and act to minimize it, by avoiding certain places or using extra precautions.

Participants were also commonly interested in getting more information about scenarios and projections of all variety, to mitigate some of their uncertainty about how bad this situation might be for Canada and how long it might last. While acknowledging the difficulty, limits and downsides for governments in providing these kinds of projections, many still wanted to see or hear more with respect to cases and deaths, the impact on the economy, and the duration of the virus, shut downs and stay-at-home measures.

On a related issue, many wanted to know if and how well social distancing and isolation were working to slow the rate of infections and community spread. Some were especially concerned about whether quarantines and other measures were being complied with and enforced. They also wanted to know to what extent people were being screened at airports, or tested, tracked and monitored to assist with the effort to ‘flatten the curve’.

A few, especially in the Québec City groups, felt that not enough detail was being made readily available about financial aid, including who qualified, how to apply, or how quickly the money would be dispensed. Some mentioned either looking online, or knowing someone who did, and not being able to get answers or complete an application.

Information Seeking

The information that participants had been actively looking for was primarily focused on the virus and its spread, especially in regard to cases and deaths, symptoms, and transmission. Some said they had looked for more detailed information about who was being affected, how many people were recovering, whether children were at risk, or what to expect and how to manage the illness if it ended up affecting them or family members. Some were looking for more information related to issues such as the length of time the virus could live on various surfaces.

Participants were also actively looking for information about local closures, what was open and what was not, especially concerning schools, daycares, shops, restaurants and work places. Some were looking for more information about any new restrictions on movement and being outdoors, including whether or not they could walk their dogs or be in parks.

Some were also actively searching for information on financial aid being made available to individuals and businesses, and where to get more details about who qualified or how to apply.

Concerns and Impact

Most felt that the situation in Canada was serious to very serious and was going to get worse. In regard to the virus itself, many were worried about the impact on public health, the health care system, and vulnerable populations such as older people and those with pre-existing health conditions. Many said that they were less concerned about the health impacts on themselves and their children than on aging parents, but were growing increasingly worried about risks, overall, as the virus spread.

Most were also worried about the economy and the negative impacts of widespread closures and social distancing on businesses and industry, including employment and supply chains, as well as personal finances and incomes. Some were concerned about themselves (and were already being affected), but most were more immediately concerned about Canadians and members of their communities, especially those most seriously affected by shut downs and who are already financially strained. Some, especially among the men, were more concerned about the economy than public health, and felt that economic disruptions had the potential to create more harm and have longer-term negative consequences for the majority of people than the virus itself.

That said, everyone felt that social distancing, home isolation, shut downs and other measures were warranted to contain the spread of the virus and its impacts on health. Most said that they were following these measures themselves and implementing changes in their own daily lives. But while some were optimistic that this would help to flatten the curve of transmissions, many were concerned about adherence to these directives among returning travellers and those with symptoms, who posed a higher risk of transmission. Many felt that more needed to be done to communicate the importance of these directives, and to enforce them where required, as well as undertake more testing to identify cases and facilitate tracing and more stringent quarantines. Many were concerned that appropriate testing was not been done and had heard news to this affect in the media and by word of mouth, that even people with symptoms and presumed cases were not being widely tested.

Among other issues, some were worried about rising anxiety and mental health issues resulting from the increasing intensity of the virus in Canada and the myriad effects it was having on people’s lives and wellbeing. These included social distancing and isolation, financial issues, unemployment, concerns about scarcity, and uncertainty regarding the severity and length of the impact of COVID-19 in Canada.

A number of participants were especially concerned about the impact of home isolation on seniors, and their own ability to support older parents, who required assistance with shopping or caring for themselves because of age or pre-existing health conditions. Some were worried about the impact on children, and themselves as parents, resulting from school closures, disruptions to education, social isolation, boredom, and spending so much time at home in need of activities.

Behaviour Change

Everyone reported modifying their behaviours to some extent, and most said that they had undergone profound changes to their daily lives resulting from widespread shut downs, social distancing and home isolation, which increased as the month wore on.

While some were still going to work, or had family members who were, many were working remotely, working less, or had stopped working entirely. Participants increasingly said that they were staying home as much as possible, and only going out when necessary to shop for groceries and other essentials or to walk the dog and get exercise, for instance. Few were even thinking about visiting with friends or family outside their household. Most also said that they were practicing social distancing when they were out and trying to keep two metres away from others. Some were shopping or leaving their home only at times of day when they felt fewer people would be out. Some of the women said that they were leaving their children at home when they went grocery shopping. Others were shopping less frequently or ordering groceries online for delivery or pick up to avoid having to go to stores entirely.

Most if not all were washing their hands more frequently, using sanitizer for their hands and disinfecting surfaces at home or work, and on items such as grocery carts. Most also said that they were trying to not touch their face and were sneezing or coughing into their sleeve. Some mentioned opening doors with their elbows. Others were using the tap function on credit or debit cards and avoiding cash, as an extra precaution.

A few said that they were being extra cautious, wiping everything off items brought into their homes from outside or shops, as well as changing clothes when they come in from outdoors. Only a couple of participants indicated that they were using gloves or face masks when they went outside.

A number of participants said that they had stockpiled some extra food and provisions to prepare, just in case, for any future scarcity, primarily, but also as a precaution in case they got sick and could not leave home.

Social Distancing

Most had a good understanding of what social distancing meant, with many viewing it as more restrictive as the month wore on. In some of the earlier groups, in Charlottetown and Dieppe, participants were still talking about avoiding large crowds and public events, for instance, as well as restaurants and bars, and wondering whether they could still socialize with a few friends and family in their homes. In Belleville and Québec City, by contrast, held in the last week of the month, the directive was interpreted as staying at home as much as possible, only going out for essential trips, and not socializing with or getting within two metres of anyone outside their household, if possible. Most also felt that social distancing entailed doing as much as possible remotely, including working, connecting with friends and family, shopping, paying bills, and banking.

Asked if social distancing was an effective measure for reducing transmissions and the rate of infection, in their view, most said yes and felt that it was necessary. Some were concerned about adherence, however, or the extent to which it was possible to implement the kind of social distancing needed, given the reality of many people still having to go to work. They felt that more was needed to encourage and enable social distancing and home isolation as the more effective precaution, and to help people avoid transmission and risks in other ways, such as letting them know about cases and concentrations in specific locations so they could avoid those places or take extra precautions.

As mentioned above, most said they were practicing social distancing, increasingly as the month wore on, staying at home as much as possible and two metres away from those outside their household. Participants said that they were doing this to protect their own health and, especially, to contribute to the collective effort to contain the virus and its impact on others, public health, and the healthcare system, as well as the economy, their community, and the country.

While some were asked directly, many others gave unprompted comments about whether or not they felt others were practicing social distancing to the extent that it was required. Most felt that other people were doing a fairly good job, but that not everyone was taking these broad directives seriously enough, especially among younger people or others who felt they were not at high personal risk. Participants tended to feel that more needed to be done to encourage and enforce this measure and get more people to take it seriously. Some also felt that more measures might be needed to shut down non-essential workplaces and enable social distancing in those that remained open, as well as on public transit and in stores.

Flatten the Curve versus Plank the Curve

In the Belleville and Québec City groups in the last week of March, participants were asked to comment on “flatten the curve” and “plank the curve” as two phrases circulating in the discussion about COVID-19 and the effort to stop the spread of the virus.

Most were familiar with the phrase “flatten the curve” and said that they were hearing or seeing this phrase a lot in the media, including in government news conferences and communications from public health officials. Some were confused by what it meant. Many, however, correctly associated it with slowing the rate of infection. A few questioned whether flattening the curve meant reducing the number of cases, or reducing the rate of new cases and spreading them out over a longer period of time in order not to overrun hospitals

Recognition and comprehension of “planking the curve” was generally low. A few had heard this phrase and understood it. Some felt that this was the phrase being used by the Prime Minister, the Chief Public Health Officer, and others speaking on behalf of the federal government.

Some viewed the two phrases as interchangeable and felt that “planking the curve” was a more memorable phrase designed to help it resonate with the public. Some associated it with “planking” challenges and memes circulating on the internet and wondered if this choice of word was an attempt to play into that phenomenon and appeal to younger people. Among those with this view, most preferred “flatten the curve” as the more straightforward and well-understood term.

In the Québec City groups, participants tended to associate different meanings with the two phrases. They felt that “planking the curve” was about reducing the overall number of cases, and that “flattening the curve” was about slowing down the rate of infection. In the men’s group, participants preferred “flattening the curve” as the more realistic goal, while the women tended to prefer “planking the curve” as the more ambitious goal, which they felt sent a stronger message about the need for everyone to stay isolated.

Community Changes

Most said they were seeing big changes in their communities and both civic and economic life as a result of the shutdowns and social distancing measures. Some described their community as a “ghost town”, with the few people outside, and most of them avoiding one another. Others said that they had very little contact with their community because they were staying inside.

Some felt that the social distancing was eroding niceties and social interactions, including making eye contact, smiling and saying hello. Participants mentioned people crossing the street to avoid one another and feeling tense or fearful around others in stores and workplaces. There was also some concern expressed about the social and psychological impact of this over time, depending how long the distancing would have to be in place, but most saw this as the downside of an essential measure that they supported. A few felt that people were already getting “cabin fever” or feeling restless at home and going out for walks more than before. Some wondered to what extent this was a reflection of limits to compliance.

Some mentioned witnessing or hearing about anti-Asian racism as an unfortunate, unfair and misplaced response to concerns about transmission. A few mentioned hoarding and panic buying as another example of anti-social behaviour they were seeing or hearing about.

A number of participants mentioned positive effects, such as people reaching out to help one another, especially older people more at risk for severe effects from the virus and subject to more extreme forms of physical distancing and home isolation.

Some felt that people were going out of their way to be kind to the those continuing to work in grocery stores and at pharmacies, for instance, and to show their appreciation to frontline health care workers, through gestures and “virtual thanks” given online and through social media.

Economic Concerns

Most participants expressed a fairly high level of concern about the impact of closures, social distancing and isolation on the economy. Participants were seeing, reading and hearing about it in the media, seeing it in their communities among businesses and people they knew, and some were experiencing it firsthand through lay-offs or dimmed prospects of summer employment or business.

In most groups, people mentioned the impact on small businesses, in particular, including restaurants, bars, hotels, and daycares. Tourism came up as a concern in Dieppe and Québec City, but especially Charlottetown where many said that their local economy and jobs were heavily dependent on it. Fishing was mentioned in Charlottetown, and Dieppe as well, where participants also mentioned agriculture and shipping, as well as sectors and jobs related to the oil and gas industry. Construction and housing were mentioned in a few locations.

Most felt that every sector and industry would be affected to some extent and that the impact would be far reaching, depending on how long the shutdowns lasted. Many felt a sense of uncertainty and unease about the duration and how profound the impact was going to be over the longer term. Some felt that the economy was already in a deep recession and possibly headed for worse.

Some were particularly concerned about the impact on young adults and the next generation, such as their own children, specifically with respect to education and job prospects.

A few, unaided, mentioned concerns about the degree of government spending and what that would mean for the country’s finances and economy over the long term. Most, however, supported the spending initiatives underway.

Financial Impact

A number of participants in all groups and locations had already been affected financially by the shutdowns, especially in Charlottetown and Belleville, where half or more said they had lost income. These participants, or their spouses, had lost jobs, prospects, hours, shifts, business and clients. Participants affected were small business owners and employees working in areas such as tourism, hospitality, daycare, sales, pet grooming, substitute teaching, construction, and plumbing. A few mentioned big losses to their investments and retirement savings.

Among those currently employed and unaffected by loss of income, some were worried about the future. Others were more confident that their jobs would continue because of the type of employment or sectors they were in, such as the public sector or teaching, or because they were able to do their jobs from home.

Some were more prepared to manage in the immediate term than others, either because their income had been unaffected or because they had savings. A number of participants, on the other hand, were very concerned about their ability to manage in the immediate term because of lost income, low incomes to begin with, and a lack of savings. Some noted being single parents, having single incomes or being worried about the need to support now-unemployed adult children or elderly parents. A number of these participants had urgent concerns about their ability to pay rent and basic living expenses. One participant had visited a food bank for the first time.

While some felt secure now, because they had jobs, incomes, savings, or access to EI or emergency supports, few felt prepared to weather a prolonged downturn, especially if family members needed financial help. Most had concerns about being affected financially in the future, if not presently.

Financial Assistance

Asked what they needed to help get through the economic impacts of the shutdowns, participants generated a lengthy list. These included a basic guaranteed income from government, some relief on major household expenses, such as rent, mortgage payments, and utilities, or supplements for food expenses and other provisions.

Most were aware of financial aid being made available through the federal government and felt that it was necessary, if not for themselves then others. Many wanted to know more about the details of what was being offered, either to see if they were covered or because they wanted to know that everyone who needed it was covered and would not be inadvertently overlooked. A few suggested extending EI benefits and shortening the waiting period, and others were aware that this was happening.

A number of participants felt that financial institutions should be doing more, or be forced to do more, to contribute to the effort, by easing up on credit card interest rates and debt repayments, for instance, in addition to what they had heard about mortgage relief.

Federal Government Response

Overall assessment

Asked if the Government of Canada was responding appropriately to the COVID-19 crisis, participants were somewhat mixed in their assessment. In Dieppe and Belleville, participants were overwhelmingly positive. They felt that Canada was enacting a more effective response than many other countries and doing a good job, overall, in challenging circumstances. They credited the federal government with good communications, fast action on economic and financial measures, and strong support for the messages related to prevention and stopping the spread through social distancing and home isolation.

In Charlottetown and Québec City, many were more divided or critical in their views. These participants were primarily concerned with what they saw as an initial slowness to act by the federal government, especially with regard to tightening the border, restricting travel, and mitigating the risks associated with returning travellers. Even among those who were positive in their overall views of the federal government’s response, these came up as issues of concern.

In Québec City, most also said that the federal government was lagging their province and being prodded by the provincial government to move more quickly with federal measures and initiatives. Some also felt that federal government was moving too slowly to implement financial aid.

Key issues: strengths and weaknesses

Regardless of their overall assessment, most tended to agree that the federal government was doing a good job in some important areas and needed to improve in others.

Communications

Government of Canada’s public communications were generally given high marks. Most felt that the Prime Minister, in particular, and Canada’s chief public health officer were doing a good job of being highly visible, authoritative spokespeople for the national effort, and keeping the public informed with frequent updates. Many said that they appreciated the overall quality of this effort.

Most also had positive assessments of the quality of the information and advice coming from the federal government. Overall, it was viewed as trustworthy and authoritative, clear and easy to understand, and relevant to public needs and participants’ own interests. Some commented positively on the repetition of key messages and the use of visuals to communicate critical information and complex data.

In particular, many credited the federal government for effective promotion of measures to stop the spread of the virus, especially physical distancing and home isolation. Many felt that the Prime Minister was also leading by example, by going into isolation after his wife contracted the virus. Some also felt that the Prime Minister’s daily news conferences from the steps of his home were reinforcing the message to Canadians tuning in.

That said, many felt that the federal government could improve in a number of key areas. Most commonly, participants said they wanted to see more forceful communications about physical distancing, isolation, and quarantines as directives with consequences for non-compliance. Participants also widely wanted more information about cases, locations, testing, screening, and the impact of current measures, both positive and negative. In particular, a number of participants wanted more projections on a wide variety of issues, to get a better sense of the impact and duration of the pandemic, its associated threats to public health, and its disruptions to public life and the economy.

While most were aware that the federal government was making a wide range of financial supports available, most wanted to know more about the specific programs, especially in regard to qualifying criteria, how to apply, and how quickly money or relief would be made available. Some felt that this information was unclear or hard to find, even among those actively looking for it.

Economic and financial measures

Most liked the swiftness with which the government had announced economic and financial initiatives to support the economy and households. They felt that this was essential to buttress the economy and meet the urgent needs of the many businesses and individuals affected. Some pointed to examples of the federal government refining or expanding policies as they went and saw this as a positive sign of the government moving quickly while demonstrating its commitment to deliver assistance to all who needed it. A number of participants commented that Canada was doing a better job in this regard than other countries, especially the United States.

Many liked the focus of these measures on people, and not just employers, business and industry. Most also felt that the government was doing a lot, and spending a great deal, to mitigate the impacts of an unprecedented disruption, and they were widely supportive of this overall direction.

Asked if the response to date had been sufficient, responses were somewhat mixed. Many said no, which was less a criticism of the government efforts so far than an expression of concern about the magnitude and urgency of the need. Many were of the opinion that while efforts to-date had been promising, more was needed to ensure that everyone affected could receive financial assistance, quickly. Some felt that it was too early to tell, either because programs were still evolving, or because they did not have sufficient details about what was being offered, how many were being covered, or whether the money was beginning to flow. A number of participants felt that the federal government needed to move more swiftly to issue financial assistance to individuals, and that the application process, eligibility, amounts, and timing of payments were unclear, or that people were still being left out. Some were waiting for information or benefits themselves.

Borders and Air Travel

Many were critical of the federal government’s performance in this area and felt that it had been slow to respond to issues concerning the borders and travel. Many felt that the federal government should have tightened the border and limited travel earlier than it did, including restricting travel with China and Asia, in particular, as well as issuing more forceful directives about Canadians needing to return home or cancel plans to go abroad. Some felt that initial travel advisories and warnings had been too indirect.

On a related issue, a number of participants felt there had been problems associated with Canadians returning home in response to new measures and restrictions, including huge line ups of travellers crowded together in customs, unable to practice social distancing. Similarly, some had heard about a lack of screening or other precautions being implemented at airports, and shortcomings in communicating about the obligatory two-week house isolation or enforcing it in any way.

Some applauded the government’s most recent effort to close the borders, reduce travel, impose restrictions and bring Canadians back from overseas without shutting off trade and commerce. These participants felt that the government was doing a good job of trying to strike the right balance between public health and other imperatives.

Federal-provincial coordination

Some felt that there should be more federal-provincial coordination around these types of major responses and measures, in general. This came up in most locations throughout the last two weeks of the month. In Québec City, in both groups, some felt that Québec was responding more quickly to the evolving situation than the federal government. Participants wanted to see the latter move more swiftly, and ideally to keep up and coordinate with the provinces, but were quick to qualify their comments by acknowledging the magnitude of the challenge or noting that Canada was doing fairly well, under the circumstances, compared to some other countries.

Some also felt that greater coordination of announcements and messages between federal and provincial governments were needed, and that there had been some confusion and inconsistency regarding closures and other measures being implemented province-by-province. Others, however, felt that this had more to do with policy decisions being made at different times than communications.

In the Dieppe groups, a number of participants focused on provincial actions, commenting that there had been some issues around the process and timing for school closures. They felt that responses had been slow to happen in their province, compared to others, and that the lack of uniformity in decisions and announcements about closures had led to a sense of uncertainty, was confusing, and enabled students to return to class for one day following March break, before the schools were finally closed.

Priorities for Next Steps

Participants identified a number of key priorities for government looking forward. Overall, they wanted to see the Government of Canada do everything it could, and needed to do, to manage the pandemic effectively and stop the spread of COVID-19 and its impact on the economy and public life.

Asked specifically what federal government should be doing, based on the issues and concerns most important to them, participants had some key suggestions.

Contain the virus

Social distancing, isolation and quarantines: Most commonly, participants wanted to see the federal government implement the measures necessary to contain the virus and slow down its spread until a vaccine or treatment could be found. This included strict measures in place, to enforce closures of nonessential businesses and workplaces, and force compliance with stay at home directives, physical distancing, and quarantines.

More forceful measures: In regard to the kinds of government actions above, which most felt were essential to stop the spread of COVID-19 in Canada, the consensus was that the federal government needed to be more forceful, overall, by making directives clearer, definite, compulsory, and enforceable. Some felt that the government should do more than provide guidance for communities, businesses and other relevant bodies. They felt that self-policing had limits and some people and businesses needed to be compelled to comply with provincial/municipal emergency measures, which they assumed fell under federal jurisdiction. Many also stressed the importance of communicating more forcefully about the seriousness and severity of the issue, the importance of these measures, and the need for everyone to follow them, including younger people, students, travellers and others they perceived to not be taking the directives seriously enough. Some were unclear about the nature of the directives currently in place, themselves, including what was allowed and what was not, and what the rules were in different parts of the country or province. In this vein, some mentioned a need for a more coordinated national response so that all provinces and municipalities implemented clear, comprehensive and uniform measures at the same time.

Testing: Participants generally felt that more testing was needed, as a matter of policy and practice, to monitor and manage cases and risk more effectively. Testing was also viewed as essential to understanding the true scale of infections, and other data regarding death rates, rate of spread and severity of impact. A number of participants mentioned the need, in their view to develop a system and set of test kits to enable quick and widespread testing of people with symptoms or connected to confirmed cases. Greater surveillance was also mentioned by some, including monitoring and contact tracing.

Vaccine: A number of participants mentioned the work required to develop a vaccine or find an effective treatment for COVID-19 as a top priority for the federal government.

Deliver comprehensive economic and financial support, quickly

Most also felt that the federal government should continue to do whatever was needed to respond to the economic and financial crisis for citizens, employers, and businesses. Participants generally supported the kind of initiatives they were hearing about, and the idea of a comprehensive and significant plan to cover everyone affected, especially workers and small businesses. Most agreed that the priority now was to continue to ensure that everyone was covered, and to get the money out quickly, recognizing that it was needed urgently to address the immediate crisis that some might be facing with regard to paying salaries, rent, and taxes among businesses, or rent, mortgage payments, utilities and grocery bills among individuals and families. In addition to direct aid or government relief, some wanted to see the federal government address practices in the private sector, as well, either by encouraging landlords to offer some form of relief to tenants or forcing the banks to lower their loan and credit card interest rates.

More detailed information about financial supports and programs

Many wanted to know where to go to get more detailed and comprehensive information about the range of financial benefits and relief being made available to individuals. Some felt that this was more urgent than health-related information for most people. Some also wanted more work done to ensure that the application process was clear, easy, and straightforward, and that people could easily figure out if they qualified or not, knew who to call, and could get through easily. In one group, there was some general agreement that the government should focus its advertising efforts more on the economic aid and support they were providing to Canadians versus the importance of handwashing, for instance, which they felt had been already been widely conveyed.

Continue to communicate well

Communications were widely viewed as a strength for the federal government in its handling of the COVID-19 crisis. Participants were tuned into and paying attention to the federal government and its announcements, communications and key messages. They viewed the federal government as a credible, authoritative, relevant source. They were both aware and supportive of the frequency of communications, and they liked and appreciated the leadership and visibility of the Prime Minister and the Chief Medical Officer, who lend authority and credibility to the effort.

Continue to move quickly

Many participants were critical of a perceived initial slowness to act by the federal government in regard to borders and travel. Most felt that the federal government had begun to move more quickly and proactively, especially in regard to support for widespread shutdowns and communications about preventative measures, such social distancing and home isolation. Participants particularly liked that the federal government was moving quickly to announce financial and economic initiatives, and to expand and refine them quickly as well. As mentioned above, getting the money out quickly to those who need it was widely viewed as an important priority.

Share More Information

Most wanted to know what was happening with the pandemic, overall and in detail. Specifically, they wanted access to the key indicators that could help them assess the situation and get a better understanding of associated impacts, risks and timelines. Most were looking to government as the authoritative source of information, but many also wanted to get more information on a wider range of issues than they felt was currently being provided. Most commonly, this involved information about the true number of cases in Canada, based on testing, as well as the location and numbers of cases in communities and schools. Some wanted more information on the severity of cases, the types of people being affected (and how), and the overall risk to the general public as well as specific groups. A few wanted to know what was happening with the health care system in regard to their capacity, supplies and resources, such as intensive care unit beds, masks and ventilators.

Provide Projections

On many of the same key indicators and issues above, participants wanted to see a wide range of projections and scenarios to try to better understand how bad the pandemic or its impact on the economy might become, how long it might last, and what the various scenarios, trajectories or outcomes might be. Some wanted more information on how long shutdowns and other measures might be in place and what the impact might be on the economy, supply chains, and people’s incomes, or on students with regard to the school year. Some wanted to know more about how many cases and deaths were anticipated, and how long it might take to develop and distribute a vaccine.

Some felt that some of this information was being held back, perhaps, and shared selectively by government to either underscore the urgency of the crisis to prompt public action and adherence to new rules, or to downplay the risks and possible outcomes to avoid panic and counterproductive behaviour, like hoarding. In regard to projections, some felt that the government was not being transparent, and that there were more upsides than downsides involved in letting people know what they might be facing, and what they (and everyone) needed to do to avoid the worst-case scenarios.

Travel-related concerns

While some of the main concerns with the border and travel were widely viewed as problems of the past, some felt that key issues remained that needed to be addressed to ensure that travellers were screened on their arrival and received more information about the need to self-isolate at home, including stronger messages about the compulsory nature of the directive and consequences for non-compliance. Some also felt that stronger measures were required around enforcement and penalties for travellers who were not complying, and that better measures and protocols were needed in airports to enforce social distancing and safe behaviour among travellers.

Price on Pollution

Participants were told that the federal government was scheduled to increase the price of carbon pollution in April, as part of its national carbon pricing plan. They were asked for their opinion regarding whether the increase should be delayed due to the COVID-19 outbreak, or if it was important to stay on schedule to meet climate targets.

Nearly everyone felt that the planned rate increase should be delayed, given the situation with the pandemic and all its economic and financial effects. Participants believed that a rate increase at the present time would lead to increased costs or new issues to contend with, in a situation where businesses and individuals were already looking to government for exceptional forms of relief. Participants felt that delaying this increase would be like delaying tax filings and payments, for now. Participants felt that with all the shutdowns, disruption, and uncertainty created by COVID-19, businesses and individuals have other more urgent priorities right now, and that a planned rate increase would be a deviation from the current focused approach of helping them stay in business,. While a few felt that the increase should proceed as planned as the environment and climate change remained top priorities, most were of the opinion that too much was going on at the moment for the federal government to proceed with the scheduled rate increase.

Emergency Measures

Participants in Dieppe were asked to consider two measures that the federal government might introduce as a response to the COVID-19 crisis: a “COVID-19 Emergency Response Law” and a “COVID-19 Emergency Measures Law”.

Most participants liked the sound of both laws, and felt that they represented a much-needed, positive response from the Government of Canada. Participants tended to view these types of laws as a public imperative in the time of an emergency, forcing people and companies, if needed, to comply with their obligations and behave in the public interest. Some noted that other countries, such as Italy, were enforcing stay-at-home directives with fines.

Very few opposed these kinds of laws or expressed any hesitation in supporting them. Those who were wary about the imposition of emergency laws had concerns about civil rights. They worried about a disproportionate response, involving arrests, a lack of due process, or a further erosion of rights, and the prospect of martial law. That said, even these participants were willing to consider stricter and more enforceable rules and the use of fines, as an appropriate response to compel compliance.

Asked to compare the two, and choose the one they preferred, most chose “emergency measures’. Very few chose “emergency response”. The rationale that participants gave for this preference included describing “emergency measures” as more comprehensive, proactive, and official than “emergency response”. Conversely, a few liked “emergency response” and felt that it sounded stronger, more specific, and less vague.

Among the issues to be included in the law, participants offered up a wide range of suggestions. They included the closure of non-essential businesses and stores, and restaurant dining rooms, for example. They included measures related to widespread social distancing and isolation, as well as immediate testing for those with symptoms, and both monitoring and enforcement of quarantines for travellers, those with symptoms, or confirmed cases of the virus. Some suggested that this type of law might also include rules limiting purchases to stop hoarding by consumers or to compel the production of goods from Canadian companies, if needed to deal with the emergency. Most participants tended to agree with all these measures becoming obligatory, enforceable with the rule of law for those not complying voluntarily. They viewed the individual measures as essential, and necessary to fight the pandemic and protect the public interest. The general consensus was that the most appropriate penalty and enforcement mechanism would be fines.

Participants in these two locations were shown a series of advertising concepts and executions focussed on delivering key messages and information to Canadians regarding COVID-19.

This series of ads included two different concepts for a campaign focussed on preventative measures to help stop the transmission and spread of COVID-19, with executions for print, television and online. It also included a radio ad providing more information from the Government of Canada about safety and prevention. It also included a postcard with information about prevention, symptoms, and what to do in the event of the development of symptoms.

Participants were shown mockups and story boards and heard a recording of the radio ad. They were asked a series of questions to understand overall reaction to the concepts, messages and presentation, specific likes and dislikes, and a series of other questions to assist with testing and evaluation of the ads across various dimensions.

Radio Advertisement

Participants listened twice to a 30 second radio ad, recorded by the Prime Minister. The spot communicated a number of key messages. It stated that the federal government was taking action. It was an imprecation for Canadians to protect themselves and others, especially older people and those with a pre-existing medical condition. It provided a few key steps to follow, including sanitary measures and avoiding both crowded places and inessential travel. It also provided a phone number to call for more information and identified the Government of Canada as the sponsor of the message.

Figure 5

The radio ad in Figure 5 features Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as the voiceover. Justin Trudeau says: “The Government of Canada and Public Health experts are taking action to protect Canadians from COVID-19. Protect yourself and others. Especially those with medical conditions and older adults. Wash your hands often. Avoid touching your face. Cough or sneeze into your arm and disinfect surfaces. You should also avoid crowded places. Avoid all non-essential travel outside of Canada. And if you’re sick, stay home. To learn more, call 1-833-784-4397. A message from the Government of Canada.”

Overall reaction

Many liked the ad or aspects of it. Those who did felt that it provided good information, and was comprehensive, succinct, and straightforward. A number of participants identified the Prime Minister’s voice and liked that he had recorded the message.

In Dieppe, however, among those listening to the French-language version of the ad, most felt the radio spot was too fast-paced and condensed too much information into a short spot, making it hard to follow or retain the information being conveyed. Many of the women still liked the ad overall and felt that it provided important information, while many of the men did not like it for these reasons.

In Charlottetown, some felt that the tone of the ad was too upbeat and needed to be more serious or firm about the need for everyone to follow measures to contain the spread of the virus. In both locations, there were participants who questioned the references to non-essential travel and crowds, wondering if these measures had been defined or were changing in the current climate of increasing restrictions and shutdowns. Some felt that the messaging was no longer current.

Likes

Participants liked a number of elements of the radio ad. Many felt that it provided good information, relevant to most people, and that it communicated its main points succinctly, and offered helpful information and suggestions. Many liked that the spot was short, clear, and to the point. A number of participants liked that the ad was recorded by the Prime Minister. Some in the Dieppe groups described the delivery as self-assured, convincing, or re-assuring.

Others liked the inclusion of the phone number, to let people know how to get more information, and the music and statement at the end of the ad identifying the Government of Canada as the sponsor.

Dislikes

In Dieppe, as mentioned, many felt that the ad was too fast, which tended to create an overall negative assessment of the ad for the men. Among the women in this location, however, while some raised the pace of the ad as an issue initially, none identified any dislikes or weaknesses when specifically asked.

In Charlottetown, a few participants did not like the delivery of the ad, noting that the speaking style felt similar to other types of pre-recorded messages, and thus felt the ad would fail to get noticed on air. Some also felt that the message about avoiding non-essential travel was vague or oblique and needed to be clearer and more direct.

Improvements

In regard to possible improvements to the ad, participants offered a number of suggestions. Most commonly, this focussed on the contacts being provided by the ad for more information. Participants said that the ad should slow down when providing the telephone number or provide it twice. Some felt that a three-digit local information number should be provided, like an ‘811’. Some questioned if a website address had been included in the ad or felt that it was missing and should be included.

A few participants felt that additional information should be included about symptoms and what to do if they develop, including a number to call and an advisory against just showing up at emergency rooms.

And there was some suggestion that the radio spot should include a stronger reassuring message about the collective effort and ‘getting through this together.’

Advertising Concepts

Two advertising concepts were shown to participants in these groups, both focussed on the same overall theme and messages about implementing sanitary precautions to stop the spread and transmission of the virus. Both concepts delivered three basic instructions; wash your hands, sneeze into your sleeve, and stay at home.

One of the concepts was accompanied by a headline, entreating readers to ‘reduce the spread’ as its main call to action. This concept employed repetition to get its main messages across about the safety measures to employ. The second concept was oriented around a softer message of ‘let’s take care’ and employed a more graphic representation of the actions being encouraged to reduce the spread of the virus.

For each concept, participants were shown mockup executions for print, television and online banner ads.

Concept 1: Reduce the Spread

Figure 6: Television

The concept show in Figure 6 is a storyboard of images that could be used to make up a television ad. The four-part series sequence starts with someone washing their hands, then switches to another person watching their hands and repeats with different individuals washing their hands. Then, in the same way, we see duplicating images of Canadians demonstrating other ways they can help prevent the spread of COVID-19 including sneezing and coughing into the sleeve and touching door handles.

Figure 7: Print

Figure 7 features three print ad concepts. Each concept features a collage of square shaped images (35 per ad) of Canadians showing different ways they can protect themselves from COVID-19. In the first ad, Canadians are staying at home, in the second they are sneezing into their sleeve and the third ad shows multiple people washing their hands. There is a large white square in the center of each ad, with text that reads: “To reduce the spread of COVID-19, all you need to do is”. Then the action (“stay at home”, “sneeze into your sleeve”, or “wash your hands”) is written below in large blue font, repeating four times. Following this, text says: “Together we can prevent, prepare and protect each other against the spread of COVID-19.” The website URL “Canada.ca/coronavirus” and the Canada Wordmark are shown on the bottom of each ad.

Figure 8: Web Banner

The storyboard shown in Figure 8 begins with a microscopic close-up image of the coronavirus, along with text which reads “How can we reduce the spread of COVID-19?” The ad then progresses through three main frames. The top half of each frame features text with the ways Canadians can help to reduce the spread. The first frame reads “wash your hands” repeating four times, the second “sneeze into your sleeve” (4x), and “stay at home” (4x). The bottom half of the banner features 4-6 square images of different Canadians taking these actions. The ad finishes with a frame that says: “Together we can prevent, prepare and protect each other against COVID-19.” Throughout the banner, at the bottom, there is a button where Canadians can click to “LEARN MORE” and the Canada Wordmark is shown.

Overall reaction

Participants tended to respond favourably, overall, to this ad concept. They felt that the information was important and relevant, succinctly presented, and driven home by the repetition. Their ‘takeaway’ from the ads was that everyone needed to actively protect themselves and others by washing hands, sneezing into their sleeves, and staying indoors. Some described the ad executions as direct and straightforward. A few commented on the wide range of people shown in the ad and felt this was communicating a universal and inclusive message that everyone was affected, could take action, and needed to do their part. Most felt that the ad was credible and reinforced messages already circulating and being communicated by governments, experts and public health officials.

Likes

Participants tended to associate a number of positives with this ad concept. As noted above, they felt that the information was important, and that the execution was focussed, clear and effective at getting its message across. The repetition was viewed by many as an effective way to get noticed and communicate the three steps needed to stop the spread of the virus. Some felt that the repetition was eye-catching or injected humour into the advertising that would help it stand out. Some described it as focussed or single-minded, or felt that the repetition underscored the importance of the message.

Some felt that the message was clear and simple enough to be understood by everyone, regardless of age or language differences. Participants also tended to like the phrase ‘stop the spread’, and its tone, as the main headline and message of the advertising.

Dislikes

With regard to dislikes there were a few common issues that some participants raised. Some found the print ad too busy and distracting, with too much happening at once, and too many photos of people engaged in sneezing and handwashing. A few did not like the repetition in the ads and felt that it was unnecessary, off putting or overdone.

A number of participants were confused by the creative shown to them of the television spot, especially the imagery of doors and doorknobs, which was used to communicate about staying at home. Some did not make this connection in the absence of any copy saying ‘stay at home’.

Improvements

There was a smattering of suggestions from participants about how to improve the ad. Some felt that more or different information was needed, including how to spot or what to do about symptoms. A few felt that more information or awareness-raising was needed about other issues, such as risks for particular groups, like health care workers or seniors, or how to wash hands properly. A few felt that more facts about the virus should be provided, including how far it can travel in a sneeze or how long it can survive on surfaces.

Concept 2: Take Care

Figure 9: Television

The concept show in Figure 9 is a storyboard of images that may be used to make up a television ad. It features a variety of white icons of people inside bright coloured circles doing different activities, such as eating together, giving a presentation, etc. Participants were told that these images were just placeholders for the moment, and they should imagine a TV ad where you see different scenes of people doing things like washing their hands, sneezing into their sleeves, etc.

Figure 10: Print

Figure 10 features three print ad concepts. Each concept is brightly coloured and features a large circle in the middle, with an animated image showing different ways Canadians can protect themselves from COVID-19. The first ad features a younger male working from home, the second ad features a female coughing into her sleeve, and the third ad shows a set of hands with soap on them. At the top of each ad, above the circle, text reads: “Take care to reduce the spread of COVID-19.” Then the action (“stay at home”, “sneeze into your sleeve”, “wash your hands a lot”) is written below in large white font. Below the circle, the following text is written: “When you take care of yourself, you take care of others.” The hashtag #TakeCareCanadians, the website URL “Canada.ca/coronavirus” and the Canada Wordmark are shown at the bottom of the ad.

Figure 11: Web Banner

The storyboard shown in Figure 11 begins with a cartoon version of the microscopic image of the virus, along with text “Let’s take care to reduce the spread of COVID-19”. The ad then progresses through three main frames. Each frame is a different bright colour and features a large circle in the middle, with an animated image showing different ways Canadians can protect themselves from COVID-19. At the top of each frame, text with the ways Canadians can help to reduce the spread is presented. The first frame reads “wash your hands a lot”, the second “sneeze into your sleeve” and the third reads “stay at home”. The ad finishes with a frame that which reads: “When you take care of yourself, you take care of others” along with an icon of a heart in the middle and the hashtag #TakeCareCanadians and website URL “Canada.ca/coronavirus” at the bottom. Throughout the banner, at the bottom, there is a button where Canadians can click to “LEARN MORE” and the Canada Wordmark is shown.

Overall reaction

Participants tended to like this concept, as well, especially its use of simple graphics to convey information and get its messages across.

This concept was seen as simple and direct, easy to understand, visually appealing, and eye-catching. Some commented on the vibrant colours. Participants felt that these ads, and their use of graphics, would be widely understood by everyone, including by children and those who might not speak English.

Most said that they liked the overall approach and tone, and felt it was appropriate. As with the above concept, the main information it conveyed about steps to avoid transmission of COVID-19 were viewed as important and relevant to everyone

Likes

The main appeal of this concept was its use of clear and simple graphics, spare copy, and bright colours. Some liked the headline and its overarching message to ‘take care of others’,

Dislikes

There was very little about this concept that participants objected to. Among the women in Dieppe, there were a few who focused on the placeholder icons for the television spot, noting that these felt too businesslike and seemed to include high proportion of ‘men in ties’. There were some divided views about the use of a heart in the ad, but more liked it than disliked it. One person suggested that rather than have a heart in the banner ad that there should be an organigram to demonstrate how when one person contaminates one person, they then contaminate more people and in turn contaminate even more.

Improvements

There were a few improvements suggested by participants. These included adding some information about symptoms and where to call, if any developed, as well as adding a message about everyone’s responsibility to protect themselves and others, or to ‘be kind’. There was also a suggestion to make the advertising available in multiple languages. A few participants suggested adding telephone contact information.

Comparison of Concept 1 and 2

Asked which of the two concepts was more effective or persuasive, in their view, participants had mixed responses, but tended to come to a consensus within each group. Half of the groups selected concept one and the other half concept two, with no preference by either location or gender. Those selecting the first concept felt that repetition was the more effective technique for getting the message across, in a way that was eye catching and understandable. Those selecting concept two felt the graphic approach was simpler, conveyed the message more effectively, and was more engaging and noticeable.

Overall, both advertising concepts were viewed as effective at getting their messages across. Few felt that the information being provided in either of the advertising concepts was new for most people, but all felt the messages about the need to take precautions and join the effort to contain the virus, by washing hands, containing sneezes, and staying indoors, were important reminders.

In reviewing both sets of ads, the only issue that arose which some felt required clarification concerned staying indoors. Some had questions about the extent to which this applied to everyone, or whether this message related to certain groups or circumstances more than others, such as those with symptoms or returning from travel. A few felt that more detail was required. A few also felt that some additional messaging was required to explain the importance of these measures.

Few felt that the advertising, regardless of the concept chosen, would prompt them to take more action or change their behaviour, as most said that they were already aware of and following these directions.

Postcard

Participants in these groups were shown a post card with information about three key issues regarding COVID-19: precautions to take to avoid transmissions, symptoms, and what do if symptoms developed.

Figure 12

Overall reaction

Most had positive response to the postcard. Participants felt that it offered useful and important information and advice to the public. They felt that the information was comprehensive while being clear, succinct, and visual, making it both easy to read and comprehend. Participants liked that the information was direct from government and sent clear messages to the public about steps to follow and information to be aware of. Participants tended to feel that a public information postcard, such as this, was a valuable and worthwhile initiative. It served to fill any information gaps among the public, provide some comprehensive information in one place, and to reinforce and verify the messages and information already circulating from various sources about these issues. Most said that they trusted information coming from the government of Canada.

Most said that they would notice and read this piece, and quite a few said they would keep or share this postcard, including placing it on the fridge or showing it to children in their household.

Likes

In addition to the above, participants liked the use of graphics and design to convey information, especially in this instance where a lot of information was being provided on a small page. They felt that this added a great deal to the clarity of the piece and ease of reading and comprehension. For the same reason, participants also liked the way that the information was organized into three sections, and colour coded. They felt that this broke up the information well, directed the eye, and provided some additional visual cues for readers. Some also liked that the postcard was being very direct and clear, in their view, about what people should do and not do. Some noted the Canada logo at the bottom as an element they liked.

Dislikes

Some felt that the postcard still required some effort to read, despite the use of graphics and succinct copy and headlines. They suggested that it was perhaps better-suited to a poster than a postcard, given the amount of information it contained. Some felt that the graphic and messages related to air travel were confusing or unclear, such as the green circle around the airplane conveying that travel was permitted, when the copy said that it was restricted. A few noted the reference to ‘non-essential’ travel, which they said was subjective or inexact. Some felt that government needed to be more direct and specific about the issue of travel.

Improvements

A number of participants said that they would like to see a phone number on the postcard.

Some clarity around travel was also seen as an area in need of improvement. Specifically, participants said that there should be a reference to the 14-day isolation required for returning travellers, and more clarity in the message being sent about what is essential or non-essential.

A few felt that the post card could be more visually arresting somehow, or more succinct, and could benefit from more effort to make it even easier to notice and read. Some felt that brighter colours might be used, or that headlines could be made bigger, bolder or more colourful.

Exercise: COVID-19 Message Testing

Participants were provided with a handout with some potential messages about COVID-19. They were asked to select the two messages that they liked the best, ranked as one and two, and to identify any they disliked or felt were inappropriate.

The handout provided a list of the following the messages 10 messages.

• Do your part. Help reduce the spread of coronavirus disease.
• Do your part. Help stop the spread of COVID-19.
• Everyone has a responsibility to help protect themselves, their families and others.
• Help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Here’s what you can do to help.
• Help protect yourself and others.
• Prevent, Prepare, reduce the risk.
• We all have a role to play. Here’s how you can help.
• When you take care of yourself, you take care of others.
• Take care of Canadians.
• Now is the time to act and we must act together.

There were different results in the two locations. In Charlottetown, most chose as their top choice “When you take care of yourself, you take care of others’” This message did not resonate with the participants in Dieppe, though, where most chose “Do your part. Help reduce the spread of coronavirus disease.’” This latter message was also liked in Charlottetown, though they were more in favour of the version that referenced the virus as COVID-19. The basic message, however, to “do your part and help reduce the spread” was generally liked by participants in both groups.

There were few other messages that were especially liked by more than a couple of people, and few that were widely disliked. In Charlottetown, and to a lesser extent Dieppe, many did not like “Take care of Canadians”. They felt this sounded exclusive, and potentially discriminatory or nationalist in tone, and might be viewed as leaving immigrants, Indigenous people, or other countries out.

In Charlottetown, some disliked “Now is the time to act and we must act together’” as sounding too directive, and some did not like “Prevent, prepare and reduce risk’” as they felt the message was too vague.

The messages are rank ordered below, based on the number of participants who selected them as their number one choice. Comments, and specific likes and dislikes, are included as well.

Top Selections

When you take care of yourself, you take care of others

Participants liked the overall tone and message of this statement. They felt it expressed empathy and collective concern, softly urged the reader to take action by appealing to enlightened self-interest and social values, instead of issuing a command. Participants liked that this message emphasised care, connectivity, and broad benefits, and implied, some felt, care for the most vulnerable. Some felt that COVID-19 needed to be added to the statement to make the subject clear and the message more specific.

Do your part. Help reduce the spread of coronavirus disease/COVID-19

Participants liked both of these messages, which were the same except for the language used about the virus. Some preferred ‘coronavirus’ as the term they were most familiar and comfortable with, and some preferred ‘COVID-19’ as the more specific name for the virus, which was beginning to be used more broadly at the time of these groups.

In regard to the overall message, participants like that it was direct, precise, and straight to the point about the need for everyone to do their part to help stop the spread. They supported this goal and liked the way the directive was presented, getting the balance right between being too firm or too soft. Participants liked that this message included a specific reference to the virus by name, whichever name was used. Many liked the implication that this was a collective effort in which everyone had a role to play. A few felt that it subtly suggested that people would be held accountable for failing to do their part. Many felt the statement was concise, clear and compelling.

Bottom Choices

Take care of Canadians

Only a few liked this message and many disliked it, feeling that the focus on “Canadians” was inappropriate, either because it failed to reflect the global nature of the challenge, and the extent to which Canadians cared about other countries and people, or because they felt it might be interpreted as leaving some Canadians or Canadian residents out. Some people did not interpret the message this way and liked that it was emphasising care for one another among all Canadians, who were facing a challenge together.

Now is the time to act and we must act together

As noted above, a number of participants in Charlottetown did not like this message. They felt that it was too directive, as well as too vague, given that it lacked a reference to the virus as the subject of the statement. In Dieppe, none had strong views about this statement, one way of the other. The few who liked this statement, liked the urgency and focus on the challenge as collective one requiring collective action to solve.

Other messages

The remaining messages elicited limited opinion either way. A few liked them and a few, in most instances, disliked them for various reasons.

Prevent, Prepare, reduce the risk

More than the other remaining messages below, this one elicited the most divided opinion. A few participants in the Dieppe groups like this message, while a few in the Charlottetown groups disliked it. Those who liked it, felt that the focus on ‘prevention’ was effective. In one of the Dieppe groups it was likened to the adage that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Some also liked this as the message was simple and memorable. Those who did not like it felt that it was too vague in regard to the subject.

We all have a role to play. Here’s how you can help

Some liked the statement “we all have a role to play”, and most liked the sentiment, but more preferred “do your part” as an expression of this idea. Others found this message to be too vague and did not like that it left out any reference to the virus as the main subject of the message. Some suggested adding this reference to improve the message.

Help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Here’s what you can do to help.

The few who placed this message in their top two liked its direct and specific appeal. They felt it was short, simple and clear, and would be effective at getting people’s attention. Most of these participants liked the focus on ‘helping’ and that the message implied that some practical information would be provided to that end.

Help protect yourself and others

Some liked this message, largely for the same reasons that many liked the top choice (“when you take care of yourself, you take care of others”). They liked that it addressed people directly with a call to action that was focussed on care. Most, however, preferred the way the same sentiment was expressed in the other statement, which made the connection between self-care and social welfare clearer.

Everyone has a responsibility to help protect themselves, their families and others.

Those who liked this message felt that it was inclusive and wide ranging. It made the link between individual interests and social welfare implicit. Some felt that the message captured the natural order of consideration among most people, in regard to self, family and community, while offering a practical approach for containing the spread of the by focussing on the importance of individual behaviour.

Awareness of Government of Canada Advertising

While many felt that they had seen government advertising about COVID-19 in recent weeks, few were aware of Government of Canada advertising specifically nor could recall with much detail what they had seen or heard.

Among those who could recall some detail, a few mentioned social media ads directing them to a website for more information. Some mentioned seeing advertising about handwashing and staying home, including a spot featuring a doctor, which may have been a reference to Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer. A few had heard a message recorded by the Prime Minister or had seen a video on YouTube from the Government of Canada providing general information.

Participants generally felt that they were hearing a lot of these messages, however, including advertising, statements and news coverage, from a wide range of sources, including all levels of government, making the specific sources hard to distinguish or recall.

Radio Scripts

Two radio scripts were tested in these groups, one in each location. Both had the same messages about pulling together as a country, and looking out for one another, when times get tough. They both referred to COVID-19 as another challenge being faced by the country. Both scripts also included a line about keeping up to date with the latest medical advice at Canada.ca/coronavirus.

In regard to differences, the script tested in Belleville focussed on frequent handwashing and staying home as much as possible as the key measures that Canadians should be undertaking to help stop the spread of the virus. It ended with the tagline “When you take care of yourself, you take care of others”.

In Quebec City, the script provided information about the reality and risks of asymptomatic spread. It advised listeners to not leave home and to remain two metres away from others at all times. It ended with the tagline “Stay home. Save Lives.”

Script 1: Take Care (Belleville)

In Belleville, the moderator read the following script to participants twice before asking for their opinions.

“Throughout our history, whenever times have been tough, Canadians have always looked out for each other – that’s what it means to be Canadian.
And now that we’re facing another challenge together, we all need to do our part.
Wash your hands often. Stay at home as much as possible. Keep up to date with the latest medical advice at Canada.ca/coronavirus.
When you take care of yourself, you take care of others.”

Overall reaction

In terms of initial reaction, most participants liked the script and felt that it was informative, offered good advice, set the right tone and sent the right message. A number of participants said it made them feel good. Some especially liked that it was about Canada and being Canadian. A few felt that it was a bit too heavy on the rallying messaging or that it could have used some stronger language, and some additional detail, about the precautionary measures being called for, to underscore the magnitude of the threat and the need for everyone to follow the rules, especially in regard to staying at home.

As for the message takeaway, participants described the script as being about “togetherness” in a double sense. First, it was reminding Canadians that they were not alone. Second, it was reminding Canadians of their personal responsibility to act on behalf of others. Participants tended to feel that the script was appealing to pride and a desire among Canadians to do their part, as well as duty and obligation. A few also referenced ‘social distancing’ as a key message of the script.

Most felt that the messaging was aimed at a wide audience, commonly described as ‘everyone’. Some specified this to include adults, young and old, as well as adolescents and older children.

When asked about the tagline, “When you take care of yourself, you take care of others”, not everyone had an opinion. Among those who did, some liked the tagline and felt that it was memorable, meaningful, and clear. Others felt it was vague or ambiguous. Shown an alternate tagline, “Stay Home. Save lives,” some liked it, but many preferred the original as a better message and match for the script. The exception to this is the men’s group in Belleville who all preferred the alternative timeline as it was deemed more concise and relatable.

Participants were a bit mixed in their opinions about whether this kind of radio message from the Government of Canada was appropriate or needed. Some wondered if it was worth the money, given that the practical information it offered was already circulating and well known, in their view. Many felt that the encouragement and reassurance offered by the spot, and its focus on togetherness, constituted the primary purpose and message of the ad. Some agreed that this was a useful message to get out at this time, while others were ambivalent about whether or not that was necessary.

Likes

Participants mostly liked the radio script. And while not everyone agreed on all points, there were a core set of strengths that came up in the groups. Many liked the script’s appeal to Canadian pride, social values, and a shared sense of community, as well as the references to history and collective strength. Some felt that the radio spot offered an encouraging message, and a reminder to Canadians about the need to ‘do our part’. Some appreciated that the script was focussed on getting people to pull together around a single issue. Some liked the clarity and simplicity of the messages and information, and felt that it would be suitable for everyone, including children. Some commented on the tone and liked that it was positive, calm and factual, in their view.

Dislikes

There were a few perceived weaknesses identified by participants as well. While some liked the calm, factual approach, others felt that the message lacked urgency and was not serious or severe enough. The message to “Stay at home as much as possible”, in particular, was viewed as too soft or tentative. Some of the men felt that, barring greater urgency, stronger language, or more hard-hitting facts, the messaging was not engaging or memorable enough to get noticed or have an impact. A few felt an explicit message of inclusivity should be added, to underscore that no one was being left out, and that the measures applied to everyone.

Improvements

Collectively, participants offered a number of suggestions for making improvements to the radio script.

Most commonly, participants felt that the script could be more forceful, direct or to-the-point, by adding some stronger language about the need for everyone to do their part and follow directives such as staying at home. Some also thought the script could more urgent or explicit about the seriousness of the threat, including adding some information about cases and deaths.

On a related note, there were participants who felt that the radio spot was not especially engaging or memorable. They thought that it needed more urgency and force, or some compelling facts, to get noticed and make an impact.

A number of participants felt that the script should provide more information about social distancing, staying at home, and avoiding contact with other people, including more details and about when these measures apply and to whom. A few felt that it should include information about asymptomatic transmission or symptoms.

A few participants thought that the script could be improved by shortening it and making it more concise, and by possibly trimming some of the messaging about Canada’s heritage to focus more heavily on the actions required.

There was some agreement in one of the groups that the URL for the website should be moved to the end of the spot to stand out and be more memorable.

Radio script: Save Lives (Québec City)

In Québec City, the moderator read the following script to participants twice before asking for their opinions.

“Throughout our history, whenever times have been tough, Canadians have always looked out for each other.
And now that we're facing another challenge together, we all need to do our part.
Even if you don't have symptoms of COVID-19, you could spread it to others and put lives at risk.
So, don't leave home.
Stay at least two metres away from others at all times.
And keep up to date with the latest medical advice at Canada.ca/coronavirus.
Stay home. Save Lives.”

Overall reaction

In terms of initial thoughts, responses were mixed. The women were largely positive while the men tended to be more critical or ambivalent.

Among the women, most liked the radio script. They commented on the tone, in particular, which they variously described as frank, truthful, raw or serious. Some commented, unprompted, that they liked the last line, “Stay home. Save lives.”

In the men’s group there were some who felt that the messages were a bit outdated and redundant, having been repeated so often already by government. They felt that the focus of new communications should be on new information, such as the number of people infected. Others in the group, however, liked the fact that this radio spot was repeating and reinforcing messages about social distancing that were already in circulation. They felt that repetition was necessary to drive the message home. More broadly, there were a number of participants in this group who felt that a stronger message or tone were warranted, to give the message more urgency, and make it more effective, noticeable and memorable. Throughout the discussion, it was clear that a number of women agreed with this sentiment as well.

In regard to the main message of the radio spot, some identified togetherness and unity as a key takeaway, as participants did in Belleville. More commonly, however, participants were more likely to focus on the specific directives about social and physical distancing in this version of the script, and on the overall directive tone, as the main message of this spot. Most felt that the script communicated its messages clearly, albeit not a forcefully as some felt that it needed to be to get everyone’s attention about the importance of compliance.

While many felt that the message was directed at all Canadians, they also felt that it was especially focussed on people who may not be following the rules or taking the issue seriously enough. Some mentioned younger people, specifically, as key targets for the ad, who might not be thinking of the impact of their behaviour on others. A few felt that older people were a key audience and needed to be reminded to take extra care. Some also mentioned that the ad was relevant to everyone, as possible asymptomatic carriers of the virus.

Most agreed that this was an appropriate message coming from the federal government, and communicated important information that some people, in particular, needed to hear about the necessity of distancing measures. Some said that the federal government sending out this message gave it authority and weight. While some thought that the message could be more forceful, many felt that the radio spot would stand out as it was.

Asked about the tagline, many liked it, and felt that it struck the right tone and was both clear and effective in getting its message across about the importance of complying with distancing measures. In the women’s group, a number of participants agreed that the rest of the copy should be more in line with the tenor of this statement, conveying the life and death nature of the challenge more effectively.

Some thought the line itself could be strengthened, while others felt it was strong enough as it was. Participants were shown the alternate line from the script tested in the Belleville groups, ‘’When you take care of yourself, you take care of others.’’ Most thought the first line was better and more direct and to the point.

Likes

While some criticized it, most liked the fact that these messages were reinforcing and repeating the basic information already out there and widely known. Many felt that these were important messages that needed to be repeated to get through to everyone about staying at home and two metres apart from one another to “save lives”. A number of participants in the women’s groups said, unprompted, that they liked the line ‘Stay home. Save lives’. When asked about it, most seemed to like this line and the tone it set for the spot.

Dislikes

A few of the men, in particular, felt that the patriotic message was distracting and unnecessary. They felt that the script should be more focussed on the essential information about transmission, prevention and saving lives, and more direct and to-the-point. As mentioned above, some did not like the focus on information or directives that they felt had already been widely communicated by government and the sense that the radio spot offered nothing new.

Improvements

With respect to other information that might be included in the radio spot, participants suggested that it might benefit from information about the ease of transmission, or the number of deaths in other countries, such as Italy and France, to underscore the potential impact on Canada. Others suggested that some information about penalties and consequences for failing to follow social distancing rules should be included. In the women’s groups, participants wanted to see a more emotionally hard-hitting approach. They suggested using someone presently ill to read the ad or producing companion ads focussed on real stories of death and suffering, or about people who have been fined for non-compliance.

A few participants suggested some recognizable music to go with the spot, or an emergency sound signature at the beginning of the ad to get people’s attention.

Television Advertising Concepts – Dr. Theresa Tam

Participants were shown two current television advertisements from the Government of Canada designed to inform Canadians about COVID-19. The ads featured the Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam.

Each ad was shown twice, in different sequences, in each location. Both ads had common content. This included a statement about COVID-19 as a serious public health threat requiring all Canadians to act now to reduce the spread.

In the execution, entitled “Wash”, the ad focused on protecting self and others, especially older adults and those with medical conditions, by washing hands often, avoiding face touching, coughing or sneezing into sleeves, and staying home. The closing line of the spot was “now is the time to act, and we must act together”.

In the execution entitled “Avoid”, the ad focused on avoiding crowded places and non-essential travel, practicing social distancing, staying home as much as possible, self-isolating in the case of possible exposure, and staying connected to friends and family. The closing line of the spot was “when you take care of yourself, you take care of others”.

Concept “Wash”

Figure 13

Figure 13 is a television ad that features Dr. Theresa Tam, speaking from an office setting with the Canada flag in the background. Text on screen provides credentials for Dr. Theresa Tam, Chief Public Health Officer of Canada. At the bottom of the screen throughout the ad, there is text overlay which reads “Learn more at Canada.ca/coronavirus or 1-833-784-4387”. Theresa Tam says: “COVID-19 is a serious public health threat. All Canadians must act now to reduce the spread. Protect yourself and others, especially those with medical conditions and older adults. Wash your hands often (shows icon of handwashing). Avoid touching your face. Cough or sneeze into your arm (shows icon of person coughing into sleeve). And, stay at home as much as possible (shows icon of person in home). Now is the time act and we must act together.” Then, the Canada Wordmark shows on screen and Justin Trudeau says: “A message from the Government of Canada.”

This ad focused on protecting self and others, especially older adults and those with medical conditions, by washing hands, avoiding face touching, coughing or sneezing into sleeves, and staying home. The closing line of the spot was “now is the time to act, and we must act together”.

Participants were shown the spot twice before being asked for their opinions.

Overall reactions

Asked about the main message of the ad, some mentioned specifics, such as handwashing and staying home. Others felt that the main message of the ad was to convey the seriousness of the public health threat posed by COVID-19, or to encourage Canadians to help reduce the spread. While some felt that these messages were already widely known, others felt they were an important reminder.

Participants widely agreed that the message was both credible and easy to understand, although there were some in the Québec City group who expressed difficulty with Dr. Tam’s accent in French.

Most felt that this was an appropriate message from the Government of Canada. They felt that it was aimed at everyone, especially people at greater risk for either contracting a serious form of the virus, such as older people, or for transmitting it, such as younger people, who may not be paying as much attention to precautions because of a reduced sense of personal concern.

Likes

Among the elements of the ad that participants liked, Dr. Tam was widely viewed as a credible spokesperson and good choice for delivering the message. Many liked the simple, direct and straightforward delivery of the messages and information. Some felt the right tone was struck, and that the ad conveyed the seriousness and urgency of the issue without being alarmist.

Dislikes

A few felt that the message to stay home “as much as possible” was too vague, and that more detailed and forceful language was needed to create a better understanding of what this precaution entailed, that it applied to everyone, and was imperative. A few felt that the spot lacked energy or urgency.

There was some agreement in one of the groups that the website and phone number information should be in a different colour than white in order to stand out and encourage people to visit or call.

Improvements

Some felt that the spot could be improved by showcasing some additional information, for context and impact, especially regarding cases and deaths. A number of participants in various groups suggested that statistics be included, either on the screen or in a ‘news ticker’ below, showing the number of cases and deaths around the world and in badly-affected countries. Participants thought that this would reinforce the seriousness of the issue and urgency to act, while providing information that would make the spot more informative and current.

A number of participants thought that the messages themselves could be stronger about the severity of the virus and need for everyone to comply with measures to stop its spread.

Some thought that the current ad, while offering useful messages, was mostly repeating and reinforcing already widely-circulating and well-known information and would be improved with a new focus or updated perspective.

A few participants identified additional information or topics to be included. These included symptoms (how they progressed and what to do if they developed), the ease of transmission and the risk and realities of asymptomatic carriers.

Concept “Avoid”

Figure 14

Figure 14 is a television ad that features Dr. Theresa Tam, speaking from an office setting with the Canada flag in the background. Text on screen provides credentials for Dr. Theresa Tam, Chief Public Health Officer of Canada. At the bottom of the screen throughout the ad, there is a text overlay which reads “Learn more at Canada.ca/coronavirus or 1-833-784-4387”. Theresa Tam says: “COVID-19 is a serious public health threat. All Canadians must act now to reduce the spread. Avoid crowded places and practice social distancing (shows icon of people 2m apart). Avoid non-essential travel and stay home as much possible (shows icon of person in home). Self-isolate if you may have been exposed to COVID-19. Stay connected with neighbours, friends and family (shows icon of telephone and computer with Wi-Fi). When you take care of yourself, you take care of others.” Then, the Canada Wordmark shows on screen and Justin Trudeau says: “A message from the Government of Canada”.

This ad focused on avoiding crowded places and non-essential travel, practicing social distancing, staying at home as much as possible, self-isolating if exposed to possible transmission, and staying connected to family and friends. The closing line of the spot was “when you take care of yourself, you take care of others”.

Participants were shown the spot twice before being asked for their opinions.

Overall reactions

Participants interpreted the main message of this ad to be about following social distancing measures to stop the spread of COVID-19, including staying at home and away from other people as much as possible.

As with the first ad, participants tended to agree that this one was credible, easy to understand, and communicated important facts and messages clearly. Many liked the tone and felt that it was direct and serious, while some others felt that it could be more urgent and animated. As with the other ad, there were a number of participants in Québec City who expressed difficulty understanding Dr. Tam’s accent in French.

Most felt that the spot was aimed at the general public. In the women’s group, in particular, a few felt that the information was a bit dated and that the general public was widely aware of the need to follow these precautions.

Likes

Again, Dr. Tam was perceived by many to be a credible and competent spokesperson. Some especially liked the tone of the ad and felt that it communicated the seriousness of the subject matter without being alarmist. Some liked the message to “take care”.

Dislikes

A number of participants felt that some of the language and messages were too equivocal. Some thought that encouraging people to “stay connected with family” (in the absence of any indication as to what this meant) should not be part of the message as it could be interpreted as physical visits. Others noted that, in their view, asking Canadians to “avoid” crowds and “non-essential” travel was not strong enough. They wanted firmer, clearer directives to be issued.

Improvements

Participants in Québec City, in particular, felt that the ad needed more impact, stronger directives and stronger language. Some referenced anti-smoking or drinking and driving ads as examples of the kind of messaging and approach they felt was warranted to get people to pay attention to COVID-19 and follow social distancing precautions more stringently.

Some in the women’s group suggested using a different spokesperson for the message, such as a front-line health care worker or someone who had recovered from the virus.

Comparisons

Participants overall preferred the “Wash” ad. Most commonly, they liked the tone and tenor of the message more in this ad than the other. They described it, variously, as more serious, more sincere, and more urgent. Some specifically liked the tag line, “Stay home. Save lives” and felt that it was clear, direct and incisive. A few liked the reference to seniors and those with medical conditions and felt that it humanized the message, and made it more personal. Some also felt that the message in this ad was more relevant to more people, and that while most knew to follow these directives, everyone needed the reminder.

Among those who preferred the “Avoid”, including most of the women in Belleville, they tended to view it as more forceful and directive, given that it was focussed on more restrictive measures around social distancing. They also tended to see social distancing as a more recent set of measures and current topic than handwashing and other sanitary measures. These participants also felt that social distancing and stay-at-home measures were more controversial. These participants had a sense that some people, at least, were resisting social distancing and stay-at-home directives and needed to hear some messaging about the need to comply more stringently.