COVID Alert App QR Code Poster Testing (GMA Young Adults)

Young adults residing in the GMA were shown a series of two QR code poster concepts which had been developed by the Government of Canada as a possible tool to assist in COVID-19 tracing in conjunction with the COVID Alert app. After viewing each, participants were asked a series of questions to assess their overall reactions. At the conclusion of the discussion, participants were asked to compare and contrast different aspects of each poster such as messaging and placement of logos as well as whether they perceived the combined COVID Alert App and poster initiative to be effective in terms of its potential to assist in limiting the spread of COVID-19.

Prior to reviewing the posters, participants were first asked whether they were aware of the Government of Canada’s COVID Alert app. Most participants had heard about the app, however, few had downloaded it.

Reactions to QR Code Posters

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

Following this explanation, participants were shown each of the posters. The posters were shown one at a time (see below) and participants discussed their thoughts and reactions to each prior to comparing the two.

Poster 1

Participants’ initial responses were mixed. Some commented that the poster was clear in its messaging, while others felt it was not particularly captivating. Comments from those who did not find it attention-grabbing centered on the overall look and feel of the poster. Some felt they would be inclined to ignore the poster, either because of the colour scheme or the QR code itself.

The figure above has the Government of Canada wordmark and Government of Canada signature at the top of the image. Below, there is an orange banner, with the COVID Alert App icon on the left with large black text to the right reading ‘Scan here.’ Below, in slightly smaller black font, is text that reads ‘Be notified of possible exposures.’ Below this text and orange banner, there is a backdrop of alternating orange and white diagonal stripes. In the middle of this matter against a white backdrop, there is a QR code. Below the QR code, there is black font reading ‘Tim Hortons 525 Somerset St W, Ottawa, Ontario K1R5W6’. To the right of the QR code, there are three icons in a vertical row with black text to the left. The top icon shows an animated phone with the COVID Alert App icon with ‘Open the COVID Alert app’ text to the right, where the words ‘COVID Alert’ are bolded. The middle icon shows an animated finger pointing at an orange rectangle with the text ‘Tap Scan a place.’ to the right with the words ‘Scan a place’ in bold. The bottom icon depicts an animated phone scanning the poster with the text ‘Point your phone at the QR code’ to the right. Below the alternating orange and white diagonal stripes section, there is an enlarged Orange arrow against a white backdrop on the left with black text inside the arrow reading ‘Download COVID Alert’ with ‘COVID Alert’ in bold. To the right of the arrow are the logos for the Google Play Store and Apple App Store.

While the poster itself was felt to be clear, participants were less convinced that it would stand out when posted outside a business alongside other posters. Most felt it would not. Picking up on the point noted earlier, many participants felt the colour scheme was one that was commonly used in other signage, particularly to highlight construction activity. They commented that the frequency with which the public is exposed to this particular colour palette – on the roads and other outdoor venues – could dilute its impact, while a few mentioned that they had a tendency to overlook signage which includes a QR code. Similarly, some felt that the proliferation of new information and signage related to the pandemic may reduce the visibility and impact of this poster. Participants underscored that the attention a customer paid to the poster would most likely be directly linked to both the visibility and emphasis placed on it by the business.

Suggestions for improving the general appeal and noticeability of the poster included adjusting the colour scheme (light blue or red were favoured), increasing the physical size of the poster, making the linkage to COVID-19 more prominent, ensuring the business where it is posted encourages engagement among customers with the poster, and that it is widely distributed. Several participants also commented that as customers habituate themselves to seeing the poster as they enter a business, they would be more likely to recognize and engage with it.

Despite perceptions among some participants that the poster did not stand out sufficiently, they concurred that it clearly communicated its purpose.

On balance, participants reacted more positively to the second poster overall.

Poster 2

They perceived this poster to be more inviting, specifically as a result of the headline which some felt more clearly defined the benefits of participating in this initiative. A few also commented that the slight alteration to the colour scheme was positive. Additionally, a number of participants mentioned that the QR code itself looked larger as compared to the first poster. While this was not actually the case, it may have been that the use of more whitespace on this poster contributed to the QR code standing out more and, therefore, leaving the impression that it was larger in size relative to the first poster.

At the same time, some expressed confusion about the message ‘Get notified if a visitor from today tests positive.’ Some felt that the message was unclear, particularly regarding whether a user would be notified if an individual who had visited the business at any time during that day had tested positive or if the notification would only apply for those individuals who were present at the business within the same approximate timeframe as the user. Nevertheless, the fact that the headline included the phrase ‘tests positive’ got participants’ attention.

The figure above has the Government of Canada wordmark and Government of Canada signature at the top of the image. Below, separated by a black line, is a white banner with the COVID Alert App icon on the left with large black text to the right reading ‘Get notified if a visitor from today tests positive.’ Below this text and white banner, there is a backdrop of alternating orange and white diagonal stripes. In the middle of this matter against a white backdrop, there is a QR code. Below the QR code, there is black font reading ‘Tim Hortons 525 Somerset St W, Ottawa, Ontario K1R 5W6’. To the left of the QR code, there are three icons in a vertical row with black text to the right. The top icon shows an animated phone with the COVID Alert App icon with ‘Open the COVID Alert app’ text to the right, where the words ‘COVID Alert’ are bolded. The middle icon shows an animated finger pointing at an orange rectangle with the text ‘Tap Scan a place.’ to the right with the words ‘Scan a place’ in bold. The bottom icon depicts an animated phone scanning the poster with the text ‘Point your phone at the QR code’ to the right. Below the icons, black text reads ‘Enjoy your visit. Scan again next time.’

When asked if the poster would stand out, participants were split in their views. Some remarked that the location of the poster within the business would affect its effectiveness and whether or not it would be noticed. A few participants suggested placing the poster in a front entrance or in an area where customers are greeted to improve its effectiveness.

In terms of clarity, participants definitively agreed the concept effectively communicated what to do and why it should be done.

Overall Comparison

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

• Message – Although some confusion was expressed regarding the message of the second poster, participants overwhelmingly preferred ‘Get notified if someone from today tests positive.’ Many felt the message aligned well with the directive and outlined why participation via the use of the COVID Alert app and the QR code would be advantageous. However, some suggested that the words ‘notification’ and ‘positive’ could be bolded for greater emphasis.
• Colouring of the Header – Participants remarked that they had noticed the difference in colouring. On balance, participants preferred the simplicity of the black and white colouring on the second poster. It was viewed as a cleaner presentation.
• Positioning of the QR code – Relatively few participants felt the position of the QR code was key to capturing their attention. As noted, some commented that the colour scheme of the second poster more effectively emphasized the QR code, making it appear larger and therefore, more eye-catching.
• Addition of ‘Enjoy your visit. Scan again next time.’ – Overall, participants generally liked the addition of the sentence. They believed it was clear and that it was crucial for encouraging participation. However, some argued that additional information made for a wordier poster, which would ultimately discourage uptake.

To conclude the discussion on this topic, participants were asked if they would make use of the QR code and poster and whether they felt this initiative would assist in curbing the spread of COVID-19. Among those few who had already downloaded the COVID Alert app, most stated that they would scan the QR code and participate as it aligned with the general purpose of the COVID Alert app. Among those who had not already downloaded the COVID Alert app, very few stated that they would do so in order to be able to use it for this purpose. While some believed doing so would enhance their personal safety, others felt that there was not sufficient incentive to download the app, especially since it was not mandatory. Participants who had not already downloaded the app and were not encouraged by the poster initiative to download the app noted that success of the program was heavily dependent on the number of users and that without mandatory participation, they did not believe it was beneficial.

On balance, however, participants generally believed this initiative would help stop the spread of COVID-19, noting that the number of users would directly correlate with the effectiveness of the initiative.

COVID-19 Outlook/Behaviours (GTA Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, GMA Young Adults)

Participants discussed the impact of COVID-19 and COVID-related restrictions on themselves and their households, and the extent to which they had altered or adjusted their behaviours over the past several weeks and months in response to the evolving situation.

Behaviours (GMA Young Adults)

Young adults residing in the Greater Montreal Area (GMA) were asked what they had been doing differently, if anything, relative to the last several weeks and months. For some, very little had changed. These participants commented that they had adapted to a routine in the early stages of the pandemic that they had maintained throughout. Moreover, they felt that as the COVID-19 situation had not changed dramatically, neither had their activity. Participants also noted that their routine had acclimatized them to the public health guidelines. As such, they were finding it easier to adhere to protocols as compared to the early days and months of the pandemic. Nevertheless, some commented with a sense of disappointment that the closure of gyms and fitness studios meant they were engaging in less intense exercise and activities.

There were a few participants who did indicate that, with the onset of somewhat warmer temperatures, they were more inclined to see people outdoors than they had been through the winter months. At the same time, they emphasized that they continued to adhere to the public health guidelines.

For many participants, ongoing commitments to work and/or their studies had resulted in little change to their routines.

Impact of COVID-19 and COVID-Related Restrictions (GTA Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Risker Behaviours, GMA Young Adults)

Participants commented on a range of impacts resulting from the pandemic and the related restrictions, with most expressing a sense of fatigue and frustration. Some mentioned feeling more socially isolated with the closure of many venues and little opportunity for the usual social interactions and activities which were previously part of their routine. Others were experiencing a loss of motivation. Some participants commented that the requirement to wear a mask was becoming tiresome and expressed concerns that doing so for an extended period of time could result in adverse health impacts (e.g., repeated inhaling of trapped carbon dioxide causing dizziness or death, a misguided Internet-fueled theory).

A few other participants, by contrast, mentioned that the restrictions had affected them in much more positive ways, bringing them closer to their family as they spent more time together. Some also commented that, over time, they had simply become more accustomed to and comfortable with the public health guidelines and their routine.

When asked what they thought about the current restrictions in place in their region, young people residing in the GMA expressed concerns about the curfew. Their sense was that it was not having an ameliorating effect in terms of reducing cases of COVID-19 in the province, especially when comparisons were made between Quebec and Ontario which had not implemented a curfew. Instead, some were of the view that the province should have enforced stricter confinement for a period of two to three months which some participants felt would have avoided the cycle of opening and closing which they found had been challenging for both individuals and business owners.

Several participants from the group comprising residents of the GTA questioned the overall efficacy of the restrictions. They wondered why the pattern of opening and closing had been necessary especially as they felt that individuals, for the most part, had generally abided by the public health guidance. Their comments indicated a sense of frustration that the current approach did not seem to be making a significant difference in terms of curbing the spread of COVID-19, despite public commitment to the public health measures. Some GTA participants noted that the second wave of COVID-19 had simply morphed into a third wave of the virus without any noticeable demarcation between the two waves. This left them questioning what difference it would make if they gathered with neighbours or friends. They felt that, regardless of their actions, another lockdown was inevitable.

When asked whether or not COVID-19 restrictions should be lifted or further enforced, participants were divided in their opinions. Some thought that restrictions should be lessened or lifted as vaccination rates increased, citing concerns about the state of the economy and the mental well-being of the population. Others emphasized the precariousness of the variants of concern arguing that stricter guidelines were needed until the implications of the variants are fully known.

On balance, however, participants expressed greater concern about COVID-19 as opposed to the financial and economic impacts. They felt more strongly about protecting their family and others within their close circle. They held out hope that vaccinations would allow a return to normalcy. A few participants were less worried about the impact of COVID-19 on themselves and more focused on the economic implications. Students were particularly concerned about the impact of the pandemic on the quality of their school life.

Vaccine Outlook (GTA Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours)

Participants were asked about their views on taking the vaccine. The response was, for the most part, negative. Opposition to the vaccine centered on several issues and concerns:

• Participants were concerned about the speed at which the vaccine was developed and its subsequent safety;
• Some approached the issue from the standpoint of personal choice. They did not want to be forced or pressured into being vaccinated, although they did indicate that they were quite prepared to adhere to the various public health guidelines. At the same time, these participants feared the economic and social consequences of not getting vaccinated (e.g. losing their job); and
• A few participants assumed that, based on their health and age, they did not need to be vaccinated at this time. Their impression was that their youthfulness and overall good health would be sufficient to protect them from the virus. They remarked that decisions regarding which sub-groups of the population receive the vaccine should be based on a medical rationale.

Those few who were more positive towards vaccinations used the experience of polio as an example underpinning the societal benefits of mass vaccination.

Atlantic Bubble (Atlantic Canada)

Participants from Atlantic Canada discussed the impact of COVID-related restrictions and their views on the Atlantic Bubble which had been in place until November 2020.

Participants spoke about the impact of COVID-related restrictions which affected participants in varying ways, in terms of social, health and financial impacts, and to varying degrees. Some commented on the lengthy disconnection from friends and family which they mentioned had been particularly hard on those with family members located across the country whom they had been unable to visit over the last year. While many acknowledged and understood the rationale for stay-at-home orders and the public health guidance to limit or avoid interactions between households, some participants lamented the inability to properly care for others who were ill or elderly. Some felt badly about those who had experienced the loss of a loved one during the pandemic and, specifically, being unable to support them as much as they would have liked through the grieving process.

Some had lost their jobs and spoke about having to draw down on their savings. They were anticipating a lengthy recovery period, underscoring the impact on their household’s financial security over the short and medium-term.

Students in the group mentioned that they had essentially missed half a year of their studies. Online studies were seen to be inferior to in-person lectures and interactions with professors, instructors and their peers. They lamented the lack of social interaction which they felt was an important component of the post-secondary educational experience.

A number of participants spoke about the mental health impacts of COVID-19, mentioning frequent displays or evidence of increased anxiety. Participants indicated that simple tasks such as grocery shopping or stocking up on supplies, which had typically been enjoyable experiences, were now becoming more stressful as the frustration of shoppers attempting to run errands as quickly as possible was becoming more noticeable. Some also commented that they were looking forward to a time when masks are no longer required, when people would recognize each other more readily and feel more comfortable greeting each other.

Finally, several participants missed traveling for work and for pleasure, including visiting other areas outside of the Atlantic region.

Reinstating the Atlantic Bubble

Participants were asked for their opinions on reinstating the so-called Atlantic Bubble. The Bubble had been in place until November 2020, allowing unrestricted travel among the four provinces and restricted travel from Canadians who lived outside Atlantic Canada. Most agreed that the Atlantic Bubble should be reinstated, although there was some concern that this should not be done too quickly and that attention should be paid in particular to movement across the New Brunswick-Quebec border. Some were also concerned about the situation in Newfoundland and Labrador and recommended a ‘Maritime Bubble’ which would exclude them. Nevertheless, it was felt that the four provinces had generally done an excellent job of working together to synchronize public health measures with the goal of curbing the spread of COVID-19 throughout the region.

There were, however, a few participants who were less convinced of the need to reinstate the Bubble. These participants were most concerned about the following:

• The adverse impact of the Bubble on economic growth, particularly with the airports being closed;
• Difficulties faced by those living in the Atlantic region who are working in another province outside the region specifically with respect to the requirements to self-isolate or quarantine for two weeks prior to returning home or upon arriving home; and
• The perceived inconsistency in the application of the rules – some mentioned that those deemed to be non-essential workers were being held back from returning to their jobs outside the region, while there appeared to be no hard and fast rules for those moving back and forth between New Brunswick and Ontario, for example.

Some felt strongly that their constitutional right to travel freely within Canada was being restricted.

Participants did express some worries when asked if they felt that new COVID-19 variants could potentially spread more quickly through Atlantic Canada if the Bubble was to be reinstated. Some were concerned that more movement within the region would lead to higher rates of transmission, especially given the variants of concern and the fact that many people remained unvaccinated. The major issue was a lack of capacity within the health care system to handle a surge in cases of COVID-19. On balance, most participants felt the current restrictions in place were sufficient at this time and that further restrictions were not required. Some suggested the need for restrictions would be lessened as the vaccine rollout got underway.

Opening Up Travel between Atlantic Canada and the Rest of Canada

When asked specifically about when travel should open up between Atlantic Canada and the rest of Canada, most participants were particularly concerned about the situation in Quebec. The general view was that this could occur when case numbers in Quebec were under control. Others noted that consideration should only be given to opening up the borders when there are no new cases of those who have contracted one of the variants of concern in Ontario and Quebec. That said, some degree of fatigue was expressed by several participants who recommended opening sooner than later, noting that a third wave was likely and unavoidable regardless of the measures taken. There was a sense that the situation would in all likelihood continue with no specific end date in sight and, if this was the case, the recommendation was to proceed towards opening.

On the specific question of what criteria Atlantic Canada should use to decide whether to open up, participants mentioned the following:

• When most Canadians are vaccinated;
• When case levels are low;
• Based on public health recommendations – participants were looking for some consistency in the recommendations at the federal and provincial levels on this decision.

This also led to a discussion that the standards should be the same for Canadians entering the region as for Americans, with participants noting that the criteria should be the same for U.S. citizens as it is for Canadian citizens wishing to transit into and/or through the Atlantic region.

Finally, participants were asked whether there should be an Atlantic Bubble first, or if the province should open up to all provinces and territories at the same time. Most agreed that the former approach was more appropriate and, overall, that any plan to reopen should involve a concerted effort and coordinated action on the part of all four provinces in the region.

COVID-19 Vaccine (Lower Mainland B.C. Vaccine Hesitant, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Atlantic Canada, GTA Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, GMA Young Adults)

As the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine continued throughout March, participants in several groups discussed their perceptions of the Government of Canada’s performance in procuring and distributing the vaccine as well as their own personal perspectives on the vaccine, specifically their intention to be vaccinated and/or any hesitations they had.

COVID-19 Vaccines in the News (Atlantic Canada, GTA Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, GMA Young Adults)

Most participants appeared to be paying fairly close attention to news and information about COVID-19 vaccines in Canada, particularly the progression of the rollout within their province. Indeed some participants commented they had been hearing more about the vaccines within the last two months and were especially focused on the rate at which vaccines were being distributed to the provinces and their own eligibility status to be vaccinated, according to the schedule set out by their respective provincial governments.

While many were anxiously awaiting the point at which they would become eligible to be vaccinated, some of what they were hearing about the vaccines was raising questions or causing varying levels of concern. Some were paying attention to testing that was being done to determine vaccine efficacy among children and youth, aged 12 to 18. Several participants also questioned the efficacy of the vaccines against the new variants of concern, based on what they had heard or seen in the news or in conversation with others.

In particular, a number of participants were aware that approval had been granted for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but also that there were reports of blood clots associated with this vaccine which in some cases resulted in death, although there was acknowledgement that this was a rare event. While a few others also raised the issue of adverse side effects from the vaccines, on balance, most expressed greater interest in ensuring a rapid and steady rollout. Others had heard about people who had contracted COVID-19 despite being vaccinated and that it was still possible for those who had been vaccinated to transmit the virus. This gave some participants pause to question the general efficacy of the vaccine.

A number of participants spoke about their efforts to book appointments and their interest in having more precise information about the timelines for distribution in their province. Their comments suggested that there was some degree of confusion regarding both eligibility status and the locations where vaccinations were being offered. Additionally, a few participants spoke about the issue of vaccine brand preference, noting they had heard that some people favoured some vaccines over others among those that were currently available.

Assessment of the Government of Canada’s Performance (Lower Mainland Vaccine Hesitant, Atlantic Canada, GTA Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, GMA Young Adults)

When asked if the Government of Canada was doing a good job in procuring and distributing vaccines to the provinces and territories, views were mixed and varied across locations. In Atlantic Canada, participants were generally positive or felt the federal government was doing the best under the circumstances. While some felt there was always room for improvement, participants credited the Government of Canada for getting vaccines out in a timely fashion, particularly given logistical challenges with respect to Canada’s geography, reliance on vaccines which are being manufactured abroad, and the closure of a Pfizer plant for retooling which temporarily reduced supply. Participants in this group also felt that public health and medical professionals were working to capacity across the country to get the public vaccinated and some commented positively on getting vaccines out to more vulnerable groups first – the elderly and front-line workers. There was a sense that the rollout was being conducted in a fair and transparent manner. At the same time a few expressed concerns about Canada’s lack of domestic capability to produce the vaccines. Participants commented that Canada’s dependency on other countries to manufacture and ship the vaccine was a failure in terms of forward-thinking.

Those who were more negative in their response to the question about the Government of Canada’s performance in securing and distributing vaccines raised the following issues:

• A sense that the federal government had been slow in ordering vaccines and/or was simply well behind other countries in placing orders;
• A perception that the Government of Canada was overly-reliant on a single vaccine manufacturer (Pfizer was cited) which had been unable to produce sufficient supply in the early days. As a result, there was a concern that Canada was among the only G7 country to have to dip into its COVAX reserves; and
• Others felt that the U.S. had been able to distribute vaccines more quickly given domestic production, and commented critically that Canada was not in a similar position.

Comments from other participants suggested that they did not necessarily distinguish between the federal and provincial levels of government with respect to their respective roles and responsibilities in the vaccine rollout. Some were critical of the slow pace of vaccinations in their province, dysfunctional online booking systems and a lack of direction being given to various groups, specifically the elderly, in terms of where and when they could be vaccinated.

Vaccination Targets and Timing (Atlantic Canada, GMA Young Adults)

Participants were asked how they felt Canada was doing, compared to other countries, in terms of getting people vaccinated. Opinions were, on balance, mostly positive. While some participants looked to the situation in the U.S., and particularly those states such as Texas which were already opening up, most participants felt that with more vaccines coming into Canada the numbers of those vaccinated would likely increase significantly in the near term. There was also a sense that, given the current supply, vaccines were rolling out at a reasonable and expected pace. Others sensed that although Canada may be behind the U.S. and the United Kingdom with respect to vaccinations, it was still well ahead of others countries.

While a number of participants were unaware that Canada planned to vaccinate three million Canadians by the end of March and everyone who wants a vaccine by the end of September, many were skeptical that these targets could be achieved. The consensus was that the rollout would need to accelerate considerably in the months of April through September. Some participants were under the impression that all eligible recipients could expect to have received their initial dose by July. Based on this, they felt it would be challenging to have all eligible Canadians fully vaccinated by the end of September. Several participants commented that achieving this goal would require a massive expansion in terms of logistics and federal-provincial coordination.

Projections as to when they would personally be in a position to be vaccinated varied among participants. Some indicated it would likely be fairly soon – within the next two months – while others thought it might be up to six months or more before they would be eligible.

Vaccine Intentions and Hesitancy (Lower Mainland Vaccine Hesitant, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant)

Two groups of participants were specifically recruited on the basis of their views regarding vaccination, specifically having indicated that they were somewhat hesitant about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Many underscored their continued hesitancy and a desire to wait when asked if they remained unsure about being vaccinated. They listed a range of concerns and issues, including:

• An interest in further data and evidence with regard to the side effects and general efficacy of the vaccines;
• Uncertainty about the mRNA technology used in a number of the vaccines being distributed;
• Concerns about how the vaccines were being stored;
• What they viewed as an accelerated timeline for vaccine development;
• A lack of studies showing any long-term effects; and
• Concerns regarding the efficacy of the vaccines against the new COVID-19 variants.

The fact that the second dose was being delayed relative to the recommended interval between first and second doses as suggested by the manufacturers was also a cause for concern among some participants who were not reassured by this decision. Others commented that they did not see the point of getting vaccinated if the symptoms of COVID-19 were relatively light (e.g., flu-like symptoms). Some simply felt that other more vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, should be vaccinated ahead of them and were willing to wait.

When asked if they had questions about the COVID-19 vaccines, a few participants asked about the following:

• Why is there not a vaccine for children?
• When will things return to normal after everyone is vaccinated?
• Will vaccinations be mandatory?
• When will the vaccine be available to me?

Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) Repayment (Manitoba and Saskatchewan EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients)

A discussion on pandemic-related financial supports was held with participants residing across the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and who had received Employment Insurance (EI) or any one of the recovery benefits offered by the Government of Canada. The conversation centered on participants’ views on the federal government’s performance in providing financial support to people affected by COVID-19, the process of repaying benefits for those who were ineligible and the taxation of such benefits.

Government of Canada’s Performance in Providing COVID-19 Financial Support

Overall, participants rated the Government of Canada positively for its fast action in launching the CERB, allowing Canadians to quickly access emergency funding relief. However, concern was expressed that some Canadians who were in need of the funding were left out, as they did not meet the specified qualifications. This lead to perceptions that a subset of Canadians were unfairly treated as a result of the fast, broad-brush rollout. Participants also felt that there had been a trade-off between the speed of the delivery of the CERB and a possibility of the introduction of perceived inequities/flaws stemming from the program design. It was thought that some people who qualified for CERB payments may have been young, part-time workers living at home who did not need the $2,000/month, while there were others struggling to get by on the same amount. More specifically, participants mentioned professional wait staff and bartenders who had lost their jobs and were hard-pressed to support themselves and their families.

Many participants felt that the federal government had opportunities to scale back the breadth of the program and to target it more effectively. It was thought that a more targeted approach would stretch the available funds, and thus extend the length of time for which it could be in effect. A few participants also expressed concern about submitting their taxes and felt that taxes should have been withheld from the initiation of the benefit to reduce negative effects later. Some noted that the federal government could have done more in this respect, and suggested that a simple visual representation could have been circulated to inform recipients on the amount of taxes potentially owed. Additionally, participants remarked that a higher level of accountability could have been built in to minimize benefits going to those who were not really in need nor really out of a job as a result of the pandemic.

When asked about the Government of Canada’s current performance in this area compared to the start of the pandemic, participants generally expressed that the federal government’s performance had remained the same. Many viewed the automatic deduction of tax with the Employment Insurance (EI) program as an improvement. However, the program execution was viewed as being consistent, in terms of its effectiveness.

Very few participants reported having heard anything about the requirement of repayment by those who may have received CERB payments erroneously. Among those who had heard, there was a misconception that severe penalties applied to those who either received the benefit by mistake or were subsequently deemed ineligible. Concern was also expressed for those who knowingly did not qualify but nevertheless applied and received CERB payments. Participants remarked that they had family members or friends who were in this position and were concerned about the implications repayment would have on them come tax time.

Taxation

When directly asked, all participants believed that they would have to pay tax on the CERB benefits they had received. There was some concern about what the impact on having to pay the owing taxes was going to be, but no one reported expecting major hardship. With the expectation of owing tax, some had banked a portion or all of the tax monies. Others commented that they had overhanging tax deduction space stemming from other reasons such as carry forward tuition fees, and hoped that this would help to minimize the total amount of taxes owing. The consensus view, however, was still nervousness, with expectations of some sort of personal negative financial impact.

Participants were then provided with the following clarification:

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

They were then asked if they had heard anything about interest relief for those who received COVID-19 related income support benefits. Most participants had not heard anything. The following further clarification was provided:

Individuals who received income support in 2020 (such as the CERB, the Canada Recovery Benefit, EI, etc.) and who have a total taxable income of $75,000 or less in 2020 will not be required to pay interest on any outstanding income tax debt until April 30, 2022.

There was a strong consensus that such interest relief was a positive initiative. However, participants questioned what the interest rate would be after the April 30, 2022 deadline. Many also expressed that the grace period for interest relief should be longer. The reasons for this varied from taking a similar approach to student debt whereby repayment is tied to income generation (and hence recovery from this current period) to stronger comments that this grace period should be kept in place for as long as the various pandemic income support programs are in place (plus a year for recovery). Participants felt that this timeline was simply not long enough for those still receiving some form of benefit. It was expressed that given their reduced income with the benefit, it would be difficult for these Canadians to juggle their everyday financial needs while also setting aside money owed for taxes on previous benefits collected. Participants agreed that the timeline for interest relief should be based on the reopening of the economy, the ability of Canadians to return to work, and the end of pandemic income support programs.

Hard-Hit Sectors (Toronto-Peel-York Region Hard Hit Sectors)

Participants working in sectors that had been adversely affected by the pandemic, in the Toronto-Peel-York Region, were invited to speak about their experience and, in particular, to discuss their views on the support offered by the Government of Canada as well as what additional help was needed. All participants indicated they had experienced significant reductions in their annual income due to business closures and/or restrictions on gatherings that affected overall business revenues or their employment status.

Support from the Government of Canada

A number of participants indicated they had received support from the Government of Canada during the pandemic. Some commented that their employer had been eligible to receive the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) and, as such, they had been paid 75% of their usual wages for a specified period of time until insufficient revenues subsequently had forced the business to close. Others specifically cited the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and Employment Insurance (EI).

When asked whether the support had been sufficient, participants responded with mixed to more positive views. There was general agreement that the initial support had been helpful, but that making ends meet was nevertheless a struggle especially for those whose income had dropped considerably. Others commented that they would have found themselves worse off if it were not for the fact that they were mortgage-free. Concerns were expressed about limited financial support through EI which, for some, had meant finding part-time work to fill the gap in their income. Others who had received financial assistance from the Government of Canada worried about what they may be required to pay back at tax time.

While some participants felt they were in a more fortunate position relative to others, due primarily to strict household budgeting practices and an adequate level of savings, most agreed that what was needed going forward was a plan to reopen businesses and more clarity from all levels of government on the indicators that would permit reopening (i.e., agreement on a maximum daily number of cases of COVID-19). Some thought that a worst-case scenario would involve permitting businesses to reopen followed almost immediately by another round of closures and lockdown. They stressed the impact on employees’ morale and the costs to businesses of preparing to reopen then subsequently closing shortly thereafter. Others spoke about the need for retraining and/or providing opportunities for workers to obtain employment in other sectors or other lines of work, given the instability some have experienced over the past year. Ongoing financial support for those who remain unemployed was identified as important.

When asked whether they were more concerned about COVID-19 itself or about the financial and economic impacts of the pandemic, most participants focused on the latter. At the same time, most were generally of the view that the Government of Canada was attempting to strike a reasonable balance in terms of managing the health and economic impacts of the pandemic. And, most participants concluded that a balanced approach was required.

At the same time, some expressed concerns about what they perceived to be inconsistencies in the approach and mixed messaging by all levels of government (e.g., why big box stores were permitted to remain open while smaller, typically independently-owned outlets were not). There was also a perception among some participants that government messaging seemed to ‘flip flop’ from week to week, shifting from a stronger focus on economic issues some days (which left some people feeling unsafe in their workplaces) to a more predominant focus on public health and safety (which some felt exacerbated the ongoing financial difficulties for those whose incomes were adversely affected as a result). While they understood the challenge for government policy-makers and, especially in response to the evolving situation with respect to the new COVID-19 variants, they also felt this approach was less than optimal and not a viable one particularly for those who were experiencing the economic impacts of the pandemic most acutely. And, while not the popular view, a few participants were much more concerned that there had been an insufficient focus on the wider impacts of the pandemic beyond the health issues.

Participants identified a number of sectors which they believe required the most help from the Government of Canada. These generally reflected the fields in which they had previously made a living, including:

• Small businesses/Independently-owned businesses;
• Entertainment – live events, sports events, etc.;
• Wedding and funeral industry; and
• Gyms, fitness studios, etc.

When asked what the Government of Canada has done to date to help these sectors, most commented that they felt they had been somewhat neglected over the course of the pandemic. While acknowledging that some businesses were eligible for financial support, a few participants commented that it had not been adequate given the extended period of time during which businesses were required to be closed.

As a follow-up question, participants were queried as to what the Government of Canada could do to assist these sectors. A variety of suggestions were put forward with some referring to measures put in place by the provincial government:

• Applying the same restrictions to small businesses as to larger businesses and big-box stores;
• Clarifying eligibility for financial support for individuals and businesses – the point was made that a review of CERB should be undertaken to ensure that financial supports can now be more targeted to those most in need; and
• Introducing more widespread rapid testing capability for COVID-19.

Views on Current Restrictions

Participants discussed the current restrictions in place in the Toronto-Peel-York region which many found both challenging and somewhat confusing or illogical. As small business owners, some felt there should now be opportunities to open up, with some restrictions in place, particularly given the length of time many businesses have been closed and the concomitant lost revenue/income. Participants questioned:

• Why large big-box stores were permitted to open with high consumer traffic while smaller businesses which may be better able to manage the flow of traffic through their retail outlet remained closed; and
• Why some businesses faced tougher restrictions than others – a few examples were given: fitness studios that were not permitted to have more than 10 people using the facility at any one time, while the same restriction did not apply to other retail outlets of equivalent square footage, and the changing restrictions placed on the size of gatherings for weddings which was causing some frustration for those employed in events management.

The specific issue of travel restrictions was also discussed. Although some participants felt that the travel restrictions had been implemented later than they would have liked, most were of the opinion that keeping the borders closed and limiting cross-border travel, particularly with the U.S., was critical. And, while a few participants felt some consideration could be given to opening up travel to and from other destinations with low rates of infection, most agreed that the current restrictions should remain in place for the time being, especially given concerns about the new variants. That said, participants questioned the effectiveness of some aspects of the travel restrictions, most notably:

• The requirement to quarantine in a government-specified hotel, at the traveler’s expense – some thought that travelers should be permitted to quarantine in their own home, while others felt that the cost to the Government of Canada to organize and run this program was excessive and/or questioned the feasibility of this program particularly with a high volume of travelers entering Canada. Several participants also viewed the $2,000 cost to travelers to quarantine in a government-run accommodation/facility as exorbitant, seeing this as penalizing those who may have to travel for legitimate reasons;
• Confusion regarding variable restrictions when crossing the border by land versus by air – a few participants felt there should be greater consistency regardless of the mode of transport and, in particular, that if the borders are closed, they should be closed to all travelers from all destinations, not just to and from the United States.

On balance, participants hoped that most people would employ common sense and refrain from unnecessary travel at this time.

Mental Health (Victoria and Nanaimo B.C., Alberta Indigenous Peoples, GMA Young Adults

During the month of March, three groups of participants discussed the topic of mental health both generally and in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, participants spoke about the impact of the pandemic on their own mental health and their overall level of comfort talking about the issue. They also discussed their awareness of resources that are available to support those who are experiencing mental health challenges or substance use issues and, in particular, the extent to which they would be comfortable accessing online supports. Finally, participants were shown a series of actions and initiatives undertaken by the Government of Canada to help support mental health and asked to comment on their perceived impact.

Virtually all participants acknowledged being affected by a mental health issue as a result of the pandemic. Many commented on a decline in their own personal mental health or expressed concerns for other family members, including children and elderly relatives, and others within their circle of acquaintances. Participants spoke quite openly about the experience of friends and family members who they said had become depressed and demotivated over the course of the pandemic. Others commented on how they had been deeply affected by the death of an elderly family member, noting the emotional toll associated with observing those in the final stages of life and being unable to be physically present.

In discussions, participants raised the following issues in the context of speaking about how the pandemic has affected their own mental health or that of others whom they know:

• Worries and anxiety thinking about the future;
• An increase in substance use;
• The adverse effects of ongoing isolation, lack of socialization and opportunities to interact with others face-to-face or in a more intimate fashion (e.g., hugging); and
• Barriers to accessing mental health assistance as a result of the public health restrictions.

Several Indigenous participants mentioned a sharp increase in suicides among youth in their communities. Additionally, they spoke about the resurfacing of trauma linked to residential schools as a result of the public health restrictions, which they associated with a loss of control or a sense of powerlessness.

While most commented on the negative impacts of the pandemic on their mental health, a few participants noted that a less demanding schedule at work, particularly for work-related travel and commuting, was a welcome change and had contributed to an improvement in their overall mental state. The opportunity to spend more time with family was viewed positively. At the same time, these participants were looking forward to resuming previous activities when it was deemed safe to do so.

Participants were generally at ease when discussing mental health challenges, including their own experiences. When asked whether the topic of mental health was something which they were comfortable talking about, most mentioned they were. Several participants were hopeful that increased awareness of and concern about mental health issues directly linked to the impact of the pandemic would permit more open conversations in the future and help to further reduce stigmatization around the issue. Some were actively encouraging friends and family members who were experiencing mental health challenges to share their feelings and concerns, putting themselves forward as someone who could listen and empathize.

There were, however, a few participants who expressed some hesitation openly discussing these issues, stating that they had become more introverted as a result of the pandemic. They expressed concern about others who were facing significant challenges, indicating that they felt some reluctance to be seen as a burden.

When asked what the signs and symptoms are of someone affected by mental health challenges, participants noted the following:

• Irregular sleep;
• Eating disorders;
• Atypical behaviours;
• A lack of initiative, ambition and motivation;
• Generalized anxiety;
• Withdrawal, introversion and isolation which were generally not viewed as being in character; and
• Increased reliance on substances.

Mental Health Resources

Participants expressed awareness, at a general level, of various mental health resources. When asked who or what they would turn to if they were going through a difficult time, participants mentioned hotlines, free counselling services, organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or those that provide services to people with lower incomes in terms of formal resources or supports they were aware of and/or may access. A number of informal resources were also cited, including friends and family. Several participants commented that they would be inclined to deal with a mental health issue through physical activity (e.g., exercise), taking part in outdoor activities and/or connecting with nature, or by utilizing available technologies (e.g., downloading a meditation app). Indigenous participants specifically noted the role of spiritual advisors and participation in spiritual ceremonies. Other participants mentioned they turned to substances for some relief, including tobacco, alcohol and recreational drug use.

A number of participants commented on the challenges and barriers to accessing mental health services, citing marginalized communities and vulnerable populations as underserviced groups. The point was also made that finding help at the time it is needed can be challenging. Participants in Victoria and Nanaimo in particular noted that access to psychiatric help had been difficult pre-pandemic and that this situation had been significantly exacerbated through the pandemic. Others mentioned affordability, including insurance coverage, as significant barriers to access.

Participants were asked about their awareness of resources to support mental health by the Government of Canada during the pandemic. While relatively few could identify specific resources, there was some general awareness of websites and a hotline that those needing support could access. When asked if they were aware of any support resources specifically provided by the federal government, most had very little familiarity. Some did mention vague details about a website and a hotline that could be called for support. As such, there was also little familiarity with Wellness Together Canada, a project funded by the Government of Canada to provide free mental health and substance use support for those struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Views were mixed as to whether the Government of Canada was considered to be a valid source for resources and tools on mental health. Some participants felt that they should be, although they were simply not aware of the tools and resources available. Others questioned whether any level of government would be a credible source for mental health supports, believing that local resources would likely be more useful and more readily accessible. In particular, participants remarked that they would be more inclined to search for assistance using a search engine like Google or seek out advice from their family physician. Others stated they would be more inclined to reach out to their provincial government. Overall, however, the major impediment to accessing supports from the Government of Canada was seen to be a lack of awareness and familiarity with the resources available.

The question as to whether participants would be comfortable accessing mental health and substance use supports online was posed and discussed. Results varied across the groups. Young adults in the GMA responded more negatively, saying they would be more comfortable with an in-person or telephone consultation, or using message boards. These participants preferred accessing a resource where there would likely be some degree of continuity should multiple consultations be required. They also preferred the more ‘personal’ interface. Participants in Victoria and Nanaimo were more positive in their response indicating no substantive issues with accessing assistance online. Indigenous participants offered mixed responses to this question. While some were more open to the online interface, others were concerned about the extent to which such services would be culturally sensitive. There was some distrust expressed based on perceived inequities in the health care system with respect to the treatment of Indigenous people.

While participants expressed some concerns about accessing mental health supports online, as noted above, they were open to seeking information and tips in the online environment and a few commented positively on their own personal experiences utilizing online counselling services. Some mentioned a desire to be able to leverage tools such as video or text chats, depending on the comfort level of the individual seeking the service, and were interested in having ready access to a list of phone numbers and/or website links to mental health services in their local area. The stated priority was to be able to access resources immediately. At the same time, some hesitancy was expressed. Young adults in the GMA suggested that if accessing the resources online was overly complicated, they would be unlikely to use them. Indigenous participants were concerned about the ability of people to advocate effectively for themselves while navigating the online environment for appropriate resources.

Perspectives on Mental Health Advertisements and Messaging

Participants discussed their thoughts and preferences regarding their views on potential effective spokespeople who could deliver messages in advertisements on information about mental health and wellness. A number of options were put forward, including:

• A health or medical professional;
• Someone with lived experience who has faced a mental health challenge and recovered from it or found a way to live with it;
• Celebrities;
• Professional athletes/sports teams; and
• Teachers.

Several participants noted that it was most important that the advertising was relatable and that the message was delivered with empathy. There was a general sense that it was less important who delivered the message than it was that the information was shared, made more public, and publicly accessible. Participants noted the importance of continuing to work toward destigmatizing mental health issues and some underscored the opportunity in this regard as a result of COVID-19 to bring these issues more to the forefront of public conversations.

On balance, most found it helpful to hear other people’s mental health challenges and journeys. They felt this approach helped to ‘normalize’ conversations on this topic, give people a sense that they are not alone, and permit opportunities for personal growth.

Government of Canada Initiatives to Help Support Mental Health

Participants were subsequently shown a series of initiatives undertaken by the federal government and asked which they thought would have the most meaningful impact on Canadians:

• Created a mental health portal (“Wellness Together Canada”) to connect Canadians with free resources, tools and professional support services (investment worth $68M).
• Developing standardized policies and best practices to promote post-secondary students’ mental health and well-being.
• Increased funding of $50M for Distress Centres to help them deal with the increased volume in calls, especially in light of pandemic-related challenges.
• Increased funding of $7.5M to Kids Help Phone services.
• Increased transfers of $200M to provinces to expand their virtual care services.
• Investing $10M over 5 years in the Mental Health of Black Canadians Fund to support culturally focused mental health programs for Black Canadians.
• Investing $4.9M per year in the Mental Health Prevention Innovation Fund to support the delivery of community-based programs in mental health promotion.

Across the three groups, participants focused on two of the seven initiatives as being particularly impactful:

• Increased funding of $50M for Distress Centres to help them deal with the increased volume in calls, especially in light of pandemic-related challenges – Many participants saw value in the ability to access assistance immediately. They felt this initiative would have the most immediate impact on many communities and were especially favourable to 24/7 assistance offered to groups and communities who may face challenges traveling to the locations where services are available. The focus on those who have faced issues resulting from the pandemic was also viewed positively, with some participants noting the particular challenge of those living in abusive relationships through periods of lockdown and isolation.
• A mental health portal (“Wellness Together Canada”) to connect Canadians with free resources, tools and professional support services (investment worth $68M) – Many felt this initiative was widely targeted and likely to provide assistance to a broad swath of the population, as opposed to focusing on a particular community or sub-group of the population. In this respect, they felt it had the potential to have a significant impact on the largest number of Canadians. Some participants also felt it would provide a ‘one-stop’ service, resulting in the ability to both streamline services and to better match services and supports to the specific needs of clients.

There was a modest level of support for four of the seven initiatives, including:

• Increased transfers of $200M to provinces to expand their virtual care services – Participants saw a number of advantages associated with this initiative, including the dollar value which they felt was significant and would have an impact. In addition, some commented on the advantages of expanding virtual care as an option to traditional delivery of health care services, circumventing the need to travel to appointments. A few felt that virtual care represented the way in which health care would be commonly delivered in the future and anticipated that this approach would serve younger generations more effectively. Several others commented positively on the transfer of funds to the provinces, believing that doing so would allow the provinces to direct monies to where it was needed most, depending on the circumstances in each province, and that the result would be a similar level or standard service across all provinces.
• Investing $4.9M per year in the Mental Health Prevention Innovation Fund to support the delivery of community-based programs in mental health promotion – Participants who favoured this initiative did so because of the focus on programs that are community-based.
• Increased funding of $7.5M to Kids Help Phone services – The main appeal of this initiative was the opportunity for young people to be able to access services that are directly targeted to their age group.
• Developing standardized policies and best practices to promote post-secondary students’ mental health and well-being – Participants recognized the challenges facing post-secondary students undertaking their studies online and felt that more could be done to address their unique circumstances.

Relatively few participants commented on the federal government investment of $10M over 5 years in the Mental Health of Black Canadians Fund, viewing the other aforementioned initiatives as reaching a wider audience or cross-section of the Canadian population.

Canada-U.S. Border and Travel Restrictions (Atlantic Canada, GTA Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Victoria and Nanaimo B.C., Alberta Indigenous Peoples, Mid-size and Major Centres Alberta Opinion Leaders)

Participants in five focus groups were asked a series of questions regarding the current travel restrictions and the criteria for reopening the Canada-U.S. border to non-essential travel. The discussion also touched upon participants’ views on the implementation of vaccine passports.

Current Travel Restrictions

Participants were asked for their perspective regarding the current travel restrictions. On balance, participants felt the Government of Canada had made the right decision to close the borders to travel to and from the United States (U.S.). While there was some appreciation that the closure of the border inflicted a personal toll on Canadian snowbirds and those wishing to visit family members, and an economic toll in particular for the tourism industry, many felt it was a tough, but necessary measure. The view was that this was needed to limit the spread of COVID-19 resulting from cross-border traffic until vaccinations in both countries increased and/or hospitalizations decreased. Participants also commented on the differing approaches to public health taken in Canada and the U.S., noting a more lax approach in some states which they felt had contributed to high rates of infection in the early days of the pandemic. And, there were concerns about the spread of the new variants which some felt was a strong rationale for continuing the restrictions for several months to possibly a year. Many wanted to wait until there was more evidence that the situation was under control. They viewed this as the most responsible approach to take and one which was mutually beneficial, minimizing the risk to both Canadian and U.S. citizens.

Some participants within the group in the GTA among those experiencing COVID fatigue and/or exhibiting riskier behaviours had a different perspective. While noting that the travel restrictions had been necessary at the beginning of the pandemic, a few participants felt it was now time to open up the borders to permit non-essential travel. Their argument was that, with evidence of a fairly high rate of vaccinations in the U.S., the rationale for keeping the borders closed was becoming less credible and relevant. Some expressed that it was now much safer to travel to the U.S. and that the requirement to quarantine for those coming into Canada was a sufficient safeguard. A few dissenting opinions were shared by participants in other groups. Nevertheless, some did comment that the choice to travel should be left up to individuals rather than mandated by the federal government. It was assumed that most people would make responsible decisions in this regard.

When asked whether travel restrictions should continue as is, be opened up more or restricted more, most participants opted to keep the restrictions in place. Many felt that Canadians’ health should be prioritized and that the travel restrictions, once in place, had been key to limiting the spread of the virus in Canada. Additionally, some questioned why, given the progress to date, the restrictions would be eased at this point especially given the rise of new variants of concern. There was a desire to retain the restrictions until more citizens had been vaccinated on both sides of the border.

A few participants argued for additional restrictions, favouring shutting down all international travel into and out of Canada and complete closure of all airports. This view was underpinned by concerns that international travelers were the main source of the spread of new COVID-19 variants.

Reopening the Canada-U.S. Border

Participants discussed best estimates as to when they expected the Canada-U.S. border to reopen to non-essential travel. Most thought that the border would likely open by the fall of 2021 or December, at the latest, basing their estimates on the point at which they expected a significant portion of the population in the U.S. and Canada to be vaccinated. That said, a few participants anticipated that the borders would probably not reopen to non-essential travel until sometime in 2022. This was the view held by many Indigenous participants in Alberta who expressed concerns about an imminent third wave of the virus causing an increase in cases of COVID-19.

In the context of this discussion, some participants commented that the Government of Canada would likely come under some pressure to open the borders much earlier to appease those wishing to take summer vacations or hoping to travel before the return to school in the fall of 2021.

Participants were asked what criteria the Government of Canada should consider when deciding whether or not to reopen the border and the timing. A range of considerations and/or targets were put forward, including:

• Vaccination levels – This was the most commonly mentioned consideration. Some participants indicated that consideration of reopening should occur only when 70%-80% of those eligible to receive a vaccination have been vaccinated, while others felt comfortable opening once a majority of the population has been vaccinated and/or when herd immunity has been reached, according to public health officials. A few were more precise in suggesting that all parties should be vaccinated (including the traveler and those they are visiting). Many participants were of the view that reopening the borders should be predicated on vaccination coverage among Americans, expressing concerns that U.S. travel policies could result in further spread of COVID-19;
• Infection/transmission rate – Several participants commented that they would recommend reopening only when the daily number of cases of COVID-19, and mortality rates due to COVID-19 are very low. While some noted that having no new cases of COVID-19 would be ideal as the threshold for reopening, they recognized it was probably unrealistic;
• R-value/estimate (reproductive rate);
• Hospitalization rates and number of patients in Intensive Care Units (ICU); and
• Spread of the COVID-19 variants.

In several groups participants debated the effectiveness of various metrics, questioning which of several would be the better measure to assess the current state in order to decide on the timing of reopening. For example, some argued that not everyone who has contracted COVID-19 has necessarily been tested. As such they felt that the positivity rate or the number of current cases may not be as accurate a measure as the rate of hospitalizations. Others questioned using vaccination rates or thresholds, depending on the efficacy of the vaccines against the new COVID-19 variants and concerns that those who are vaccinated may still transmit the virus. In some groups, participants reiterated their earlier point of view that people should not be pressured to get vaccinated and, as such, they felt other metrics were more useful or that the borders should be reopened immediately.

Two specific scenarios were discussed among participants with respect to the criteria for reopening, the first being if the U.S. manages to vaccinate all Americans before Canada is able to do the same among Canadians. While many participants agreed that reopening at this point made sense, others favoured doing so only when cases of COVID-19 in the U.S., including the spread of variants, are low. Others put forward additional caveats specifically to suggest that only those Americans who have been vaccinated should be permitted to enter Canada and that proof of a negative test and quarantining should remain in force. As others had stated earlier, proof of vaccination was not necessarily convincing for some, given the possibility of transmission among those who have been vaccinated. They felt this scenario put Canadians at risk of exposure to the virus.

The second scenario involved all Americans being vaccinated and low numbers of COVID-19 cases in the United States, but still relatively high rates of transmission within Canada. Under this scenario, the preference of most participants was to keep the borders closed. Again, concerns were expressed about the aggressiveness of the variants and the efficacy of the vaccines in immunizing the population against the variants. A number of participants felt strongly that Canada had an obligation to meet the American standard prior to reopening and, as such, viewed it as unfair to Canadians and Americans alike to permit cross-border traffic which would put citizens of both countries potentially at risk. There was also a concern that those who are vaccinated may elect not to follow public health guidelines, including physical distancing and mask wearing.

The view of some participants was that the decision to reopen the border should be a joint decision between the U.S. and Canadian governments, and not one that should be made unilaterally. Several participants made the point that the best approach would be to wait until sufficient numbers in both populations have been fully vaccinated.

Immunization Passports (GTA Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Victoria and Nanaimo B.C., Alberta Indigenous Peoples, Mid-size and Major Centres Alberta Opinion Leaders)

Participants were then asked for their perspective on permitting fully vaccinated Canadians with proof of vaccination to cross the Canada-U.S. border for non-essential purposes before it is open to other countries and everyone else. Many participants opposed the idea of immunization passports, framing their response as a human rights issue that restricts freedom of travel and choice, and violates personal privacy. By contrast, and almost in equal numbers, other participants favoured this approach. They noted that proof of immunization is already required in order to travel to certain countries. Nevertheless, questions still lingered among some participants about the effectiveness of the vaccines against the variants. In this respect, they were not entirely convinced that proof of vaccination should be the primary or only criteria for a return to normal travel.

Post-COVID-19 Travel (Lower Mainland Vaccine Hesitant, Major Centres Ontario Opinion Leaders, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Quebec Anglophones, Manitoba and Saskatchewan EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Toronto-Peel-York Region Hard Hit Sectors)

In several groups, participants discussed their pre and post-pandemic travel plans in addition to their thoughts on what the Government of Canada could do to encourage Canadians to travel in Canada and to support the Canadian tourism industry.

Many participants indicated that they had been forced to cancel travel plans as a result of COVID-19, involving travel to the U.S. and international destinations. Others commented that they had been out-of-country on vacation at the time the pandemic struck and had to cut their trip short in order to return to Canada before the borders were closed.

When asked about their vacation plans once the pandemic is over, most participants were enthusiastic to resume traveling overseas. A number of participants had credits or refunds from previously cancelled trips that they wished to use. Others, while excited to get back to traveling, were factoring in the requirement to self-isolate upon return. A few participants were less enthusiastic about traveling anywhere either inside or outside of Canada, expressing concerns about both the cost and the risks to their health, preferring to wait until they and their travel companions have been fully vaccinated.

Participants discussed whether they expected to spend more, less or about the same amount of money as they typically do on vacation. On balance, most participants expected to spend about the same, with some commenting that they had a budgeted amount for travel and they did not anticipate this would change. A few participants indicated they would likely be spending less, given the impact of the pandemic on their immediate financial outlook. By contrast, several others said they would be likely to spend more, either because they wanted to splurge after all the time spent at home or because they felt that the cost of travel, especially flights, was likely to increase as airlines attempted to recover lost revenues.

Participants were asked if they planned to travel within Canada or internationally. Responses were split across the groups, with about as many saying they planned to travel outside of Canada as those who said they anticipated traveling to destinations within Canada. Among those who identified international destinations, comments suggested they were motivated to visit family overseas, resume a planned family trip, or spend time in countries/regions with a more temperate climate. Those who indicated they would most likely be traveling within Canada felt it was a good time to explore places in Canada they had not yet visited or expressed some worries about the health risks associated with international travel at this time. They intended to hold off on international travel for another 12 months or so. Others were particularly keen on a road trip within Canada, or possibly into the United States. Some commented that they specifically wanted to support Canadian businesses – stores, restaurants, museums, theatres – and that this was a factor in their decision to travel within Canada rather than overseas.

Those who had indicated they would be traveling internationally were asked what would cause them to change their plans and travel within Canada. Cost was a consideration for most of these participants, including exchange rates when traveling overseas. In addition, participants said their plans would depend on the situation in terms of the pandemic. They commented that the conditions in Canada would be a factor in their decision. Other considerations included the distance (i.e., flying time), weather, as many were wanting a break from winter conditions, and mandatory restrictions such as quarantine upon return which might add to the time they would need to book off for vacation.

Incentives for Travel within Canada

Participants were shown a list of things the Government of Canada could do to encourage Canadians to travel post-COVID-19 within Canada as a way of supporting the Canadian tourism sector, which has been hard hit by the pandemic, including:

• A credit where the third night of any hotel stay in Canada is free
• A promotion where you could fly anywhere in Canada at a cost of $200 per trip
• A refund of up to $200 on travel, hotels, or activities you could claim when you purchase them using an app
• A tax credit of $200 if you spend that same amount on travel within Canada
• Provide free travel passes for kids on train or airplane trips within Canada
• Provide free admissions to museums to all Canadians
• Provide free admissions to Parks Canada for all Canadians

In discussions as to which of these would convince them to take an extra trip in Canada or to travel domestically instead of internationally, most participants gravitated to offering Canadians a promotion to fly anywhere in Canada for $200 and a third night of any hotel stay for free. A few also mentioned that being offered the third night of a hotel stay for free might encourage them to extend their trip. The dollar value associated with these incentives was viewed favourably and lowering the overall cost of a trip was seen as an incentive to travel within Canada, although some questioned whether there would be black-out periods during which this promotion would not apply. A few participants commented on the high cost of flights to travel across Canada, seeing this promotion as providing some relief. At the same time, the point was raised that more could be done to incentive those wishing to travel across Canada by land, not just by air. Some mentioned concerns about the risk of exposure to the virus traveling by air and preferred to travel with fewer people by car or RV.

Participants also generally liked the travel passes for children, on trains or airlines, and free admission to museums for all Canadians, the former being seen as a strong incentive for parents. While some participants commented that free museum passes would not necessarily incentivize them to travel to other destinations within Canada, they would likely take advantage of them to visit museums in their hometown. The ability to visit museums at no cost was viewed positively particularly by those who were feeling some financial pressures as a result of COVID-19 (i.e., reduced work hours or loss of employment).

While some participants reacted positively to the offer of free admissions to Parks Canada, this option was of less interest to most. Even those who responded enthusiastically wondered about the availability of camping spots, and thus the opportunity to be able to take advantage of this offer.

Tax credits and refunds, while appreciated, were of somewhat less interest to most participants who felt these might be overly complicated to administer. Some also thought the timeline to receive the tax credit, relative to when the expenditure took place, would be too long and would likely mean some might forget to take advantage of it. Others questioned how the refund via an app would work – they did not fully understand the process and indicated that it would be unlikely to incentivize them to change their travel plans. Some were also concerned about submitting information via an app, particularly with respect to the security of any personal information provided. In general, these options were not as attractive to participants as the others.

When asked what else the Government of Canada could do to encourage people to travel within Canada, participants volunteered the following:

• Increased advertising and promotion of travel in Canada, including raising awareness of the variety of attractive destinations and activities;
• Encouragement of family travel;
• Additional discounts or group travel rates for those wishing to attend sports events or festivals;
• Extending free passes to include art galleries and festivals, in addition to museums, as well as other local points of interest;
• Encouraging outdoor activities and adherence to physical distancing;
• Lowering the price of gas at the pump and/or credits on fuel expenses for those traveling by road;
• Offering discounted fares for those wishing to travel by rail;
• Providing local transit passes;
• Extending free travel passes to all, rather than targeting them exclusively to children;
• In addition to hotels, partnering with companies operating as part of the sharing economy, such as Airbnb and other short-term vacation rental operations, to provide discounts and/or free nights; and
• Creating all-inclusive packages which would encompass both hotel stay and meal plans to encourage travelers to patronize small businesses in the local community.

Budget 2021/Economic Growth (Quebec Anglophones, Manitoba and Saskatchewan EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Toronto-Peel-York Region Hard Hit Sectors, Atlantic Canada, GTA Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Victoria and Nanaimo B.C., GMA Young Adults, Mid-size and Major Centres Alberta Opinion Leaders)

In seven groups throughout the month, participants discussed their expectations for the federal budget which was subsequently tabled on April 19, 2021. The discussion covered their expectations of what would be included in the budget, what they felt the focus of the budget ought to be, and their general perspectives on economic growth. There was a general consensus among participants that the next budget should focus on economic growth and job creation. Some felt that there should be a greater emphasis placed on social spending, with several stressing that more should be done to help vulnerable Canadians. The concept or term ‘economic growth’ generated many positive connotations, principally related to enhancing the well-being of Canadians, but also a few negative associations. Participants’ responses on these topics are provided in more detail below.

General Expectations of the Budget

Across all locations, participants were asked what they thought would be the focus of the next federal budget. In all groups, the most recurrent themes mentioned centered on health care and economic recovery.

There was a general consensus among participants that a high priority should be placed on economic recovery with a focus on increased employment opportunities. Many said that job creation and getting people back to work were crucial steps to recovering from the economic impacts of the pandemic. Several thought that an employment focus was particularly important as they felt that Employment Insurance (EI) and the COVID-19 Recovery Benefits were not a long term solution. Some were of the view that financial supports should be rolled back once the pandemic ends. These participants suggested that employment programs rather than financial assistance would be more beneficial as a way of helping both individuals and the national economy, viewing employment as critical to positive mental health and well-being.

Some felt that an economic focus in the budget would be the best way to help small businesses which they felt had been disproportionately adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants who mentioned the impact on small businesses frequently spoke about their desire to see any potential economic stimulus directed specifically to smaller, independently-owned businesses, rather than large national or multinational corporations.

Others mentioned their preference for a budget that would incentivize greater diversification of Canadian industry, with less emphasis on resource extraction (e.g., the fossil fuel sector) and more emphasis on green technologies. Those who mentioned the environment alongside the economy indicated that they would like to see a greater focus on sustainability and environmental protection in future economic development plans and strategies.

Health care was mentioned with nearly the same frequency as the economy as a key area on which the budget should focus. Addressing the public health concerns of the COVID-19 pandemic was seen as a priority. However, some indicated a need for greater funding for health care in general, beyond the issues which had surfaced related to the pandemic. Several said that they would like to see a general increase in access to and funding for health care, including increased federal health transfers through the Canada Health Act (CHA). Some indicated that beyond broadly increasing access to care, the budget should expand universal access to additional health care services, including mental health services as well as addictions counselling and treatment. Additionally, some said that the budget should establish a national pharmacare program. It was felt that the establishment of these types of programs would be beneficial to Canadians as a whole, because such policies would alleviate some financial and social stressors.

In addition to economic stimulus and health care, participants mentioned several other areas on which they expected the budget to focus, including:

• Education
• Climate Change
• Infrastructure
• Establishing a national childcare program
• Lowering the cost of housing in major Canadian cities
• Tourism
• Reduction of interprovincial trade barriers
• Equal pay and a living wage for workers

At the same time, concerns were raised about the budget deficit, although participants’ comments suggested there was some confusion in regards to the distinction between the national debt and the deficit. Though participants used these terms interchangeably, their comments conveyed a concern about the level of federal government spending and the long-term sustainability of expenditures at this level. Concerns were also raised about the length of time between budgets, with a few participants commenting that they felt that this reflected a lack of accountability on the part of the Government of Canada.

Budget Focus

In order to gauge participants’ broad expectations with respect to the focus of the next federal budget, they were shown a list of three options, and asked which one they preferred. These options were:

• Dealing with the COVID-19 crisis
• Mapping out an economic recovery plan
• Mapping out a vision for what life will be like after COVID-19

Participants displayed a distinct preference for the second option, Mapping out an economic recovery plan. Those who chose that option said that they felt that it was the best of the three as it was quantifiable, while the others were perceived as more vague. It was felt by some that the third option, Mapping out a vision for what life will be like after COVID-19 was substantively similar to the second and that there was considerable overlap between the two. Comments from those who preferred the second option were generally focused on economic factors related to COVID-19 pandemic recovery.

Among those who selected Mapping out a vision for what life will be like after COVID-19 there was a sense that planning for a post-COVID-19 world would first require an economic recovery. These rationalizations differed from those given by participants who preferred Mapping out an economic recovery plan in that some of them noted the need for greater preparedness for future pandemics, as well as the general need for a larger social safety net, while those who chose the latter option mainly confined their comments to more specific economic actions that should be taken by the federal government. Regardless of which of the two options they chose, participants who chose either of the second or the third frequently mentioned that these two options were, in their opinion, interchangeable.

Those who chose Dealing with the COVID-19 crisis felt that while post-pandemic recovery was important, addressing the pandemic was a higher priority. They expressed concern that the pandemic had not yet been adequately brought under control. Participants who preferred this option also indicated that addressing the needs of vulnerable groups should take priority over economic development. Several participants indicated a desire for greater social assistance and enhanced safety nets which they felt would lead to Canada becoming a healthier, more equitable society. Furthermore, participants felt that stronger social supports would position Canada to be better prepared for future global health and/or economic crises.

Perspectives on Economic Growth

As part of the discussion regarding the focus of the upcoming federal budget, participants were asked how they interpreted the term economic growth. Many commented that the term generated positive associations, indicating that they linked it to increasing wealth, employment, and financial security. Though not a widely held opinion, some were skeptical of the term and associated it with more negative consequences tending to view it as more supportive of big business rather than growth at a more local level. Still others felt that the term was disconnected from their reality and did not reflect the economic situation in their region. A few thought the term was non-specific and meaningless. Several participants voiced concerns that an excessive focus on economic growth would be detrimental to work/life balance, commenting that such an outcome could be detrimental to mental health and overall productivity.

In addition to the general discussion of expectations of what would be included in the budget, participants were asked specifically about their perspectives on a budget that focused on job creation and economic growth versus one which focused on supporting people through the pandemic. Responses varied, with many indicating their preference for an economic focus, viewing this as foundational to providing ongoing support to people through the pandemic. Among those who held a contrary view, rationales varied, though several indicated that the federal government ought to focus on the welfare of Canadians before the economy.

When asked what they would expect to be featured in a budget focused on employment and economic growth, participants indicated that such a focus would mean sizeable investment in the economy as well as in housing and infrastructure. There was a clear consensus among participants that such a budget would mean direct federal government incentives for businesses, either in the form of grants or tax incentives. Several said that post-pandemic economic investment and regulatory incentives would be an opportunity to encourage green industry, while others felt that encouraging increased natural resource exploitation would also be a desirable course of action. There was a feeling among some that a budget focused on economic growth would feature large-scale investment in infrastructure, including the construction of affordable housing units. Opinions were, however, divided on the specifics of affordable housing projects. Some expected that affordable housing would take the form of constructing new low-cost housing units, while others expected the federal government would utilize key financial levers and tools to address the issue (e.g. Bank of Canada interest rates). Participants expected that infrastructure projects would be a source of employment for many Canadians.

When asked why they preferred a budget focused on job creation and economic growth, a range of explanations were offered. Several commented that jobs and growth were measurable and concrete objectives which would enable the Government of Canada to set specific targets and milestones. Others said that a focus on jobs and economic stimulus would be an effective means of addressing the economic damage inflicted on Canadians and the Canadian economy as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many mentioned the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on small businesses and the need for federal support of this sector. Some participants expressed a concern that any stimulus intended to help local businesses would likely end up enriching major corporations, which they felt would be an inappropriate use of federal financial assistance.

On balance, those who supported jobs and growth felt that expanding the economy would be an effective means of addressing the welfare of Canadians. They viewed employment as a key pillar supporting the overall well-being of the Canadian population. The predominant view was that personal financial security and stability underpinned quality of life. There was a concern that an overreliance on financial assistance, including EI, was detrimental to recipients and to the country as a whole. Those who made such comments noted that a focus on employment in the budget would both strengthen the Canadian economy and simultaneously reduce the deficit. This approach was favoured by several participants who expressed concerns about high levels of government spending, indicating that they saw economic growth as a path to reducing long-term reliance on financial assistance from the Government of Canada.

Among those who preferred that the budget take a different focus – less singularly focused on economic growth – it was felt that making growth a cornerstone of the budget was premature at this time. They were of the view that the ongoing pandemic and associated restrictions were incompatible with large-scale economic reopening. It was felt that until the pandemic was more under control, the focus of the federal government should be on supporting Canadians who are struggling with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some indicated that the budget should go beyond supporting Canadians through the pandemic, and should address social inequalities. Participants pointed to homelessness and poverty as particular areas of concern. Several said that the budget should focus on mental health services which they viewed as a critical and under-addressed issue. Though the specific means through which mental health services could be delivered were not explored as part of this conversation, many of the participants said that funding and programs in some form were necessary. Others who preferred a socially-focused budget expressed a desire for greater emphasis on education. These participants felt that increased educational attainment would be a significant long-term benefit.

French Language (Quebec Anglophones)

Anglophones residing across the province of Quebec participated in a discussion centered on the French language and the Government of Canada’s proposed amendments to the Official Languages Act. Participants were asked for their views on whether they felt these amendments would have an impact on the French language in Canada.

Awareness of the proposed amendments by the federal government to the Official Languages Act was low, with very few participants stating they had read or heard anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall, most participants were supportive of the proposed amendments. In particular, most felt that appointing bilingual Supreme Court justices should be a top priority. In fact, many expressed bewilderment at the fact that this requirement was not currently in place. Bilingualism within the highest court of Canada was seen as beneficial, both for Francophone and Anglophones in Quebec and beyond to help limit any biases and improve access to justice in both official languages.

Reactions were also generally positive for increasing French immersion programs outside Quebec, however, some wondered if Canadians residing outside of Quebec would recognize the potential benefits of learning the French language. In the same vein, a few participants remarked that the English education system in Quebec also needed to be expanded and improved upon in parallel with expanding French immersion.

On balance, participants did not take issue with strengthening the role of Radio-Canada, however, some felt that it was also important to simultaneously strengthen the role of CBC Radio within Quebec.

A few participants expressed slight concerns with strengthening the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Some participants were unsure of the Commissioners role in general, while others expressed hesitation about the amount of power given to the Commissioner and how it would impact the lives of Canadians residing outside of Quebec. Some worried that enforcing the amendment may result in a weakening of the French language and Anglophone rights in Quebec.

Participants, overall, did not view strengthening bilingualism as a major nor important issue. While many agreed that the French language needed protection, most felt that a truly bilingual Canada was an ideal. Participants felt strongly that in addition to protecting the French language, the rights of Anglophones within Quebec were being overlooked and required protection as well.

Furthermore, relatively few participants felt the proposed amendments to the Official Languages Act would have much impact on the health of the French language in Canada. Most felt that Francophones outside of Quebec may benefit from the amendments but would not find them necessary. As well, some felt that Anglophone Canadians would not see much use in pursuing and implementing these amendments, therefore stalling progress towards enhancing bilingualism within Canada.

Indigenous Issues (Alberta Indigenous Peoples)

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

Indigenous Priorities

When asked what important Indigenous issues required more federal government attention, many identified racism and discrimination as an important priority. Participants felt that much needed to be done and could be done to counter systemic racism. A few spoke about the desire for greater sovereignty and self-governance and a perceived need for greater input into the administration of criminal justice with respect to Indigenous communities. Moreover, some also mentioned there should be more transparency on how the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has handled interactions with Indigenous peoples.

In addition to addressing racism and discrimination, participants mentioned that the Government of Canada could improve upon the breadth of Indigenous initiatives. Some felt that initiatives spearheaded by the federal government were designed only to deal with surface level issues, to which some specifically mentioned low-income housing, mental health support and the cost of living as issues that had not been adequately addressed by federal government programs.

Furthermore, participants spoke about the need for equity in federal government funding. Comments centered on the need for additional support for Indigenous youth within the child welfare system and the lack of equity which lead to Jordan’s Principle, a principle developed to ensure that First Nations children have equitable access to government funded public services.

Other issues that participants identified included:

• Lack of clean drinking water on reserves;
• Greater access to sustainable housing;
• Better access to education;
• Better access to health care;
• High cost of food in remote Indigenous communities; and
• Lack of access to high-speed internet to support working and schooling from home.

Many participants mentioned they wanted to see action taken above and beyond surface level programs by the federal government before they would be able to acknowledge any progress.

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

Unprompted, many participants had heard of UNDRIP, although most were vague on specific details. Some, however, knew it was the United Nations global call to action to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples. As an aid to discussion, participants were provided with the following additional information:

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

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

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

When asked if they had heard about how the Government of Canada had responded to UNDRIP, most felt that the federal government had made little progress in implementing the specific rights and actions of UNDRIP. Some mentioned that they had yet to see any practical implementation of UNDRIP or the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

Participants were then told the Government of Canada had recently introduced legislation to implement UNDRIP. Participants generally felt that they did not expect to see tangible changes because of this legislation. Some reiterated earlier comments that little had been done to implement recommendations stemming from the TRC and as a result, it was unlikely that the UNDRIP legislation would be any different. Some participants also spoke about what they felt was a history of little support from the Government of Canada, leading them to believe that UNDRIP would do little to improve the lives of Indigenous peoples.

Drinking Water Advisories on Reserves

Most participants had heard of the Government of Canada’s efforts to lift long-term drinking water advisories on reserves. While some were vague on details and dates, most were aware that the original deadline to lift all drinking water advisories had not been fulfilled. Participants were then shown the following statement:

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

When asked for their thoughts, participants were not surprised that the initial deadline had been missed. Some questioned why the work had been delayed and expressed frustration that other projects of similar magnitude and budgets were often completed within their targeted deadline. It was thought that a new timeline of a year to 18 months was reasonable. Participants expressed that a shorter timeframe was preferred, however, they recognized that the number of communities involved and the great variability in terms of the amount of work already done and the challenges that each community faced could slow progress. In addition, the issue of uncertainty around the pandemic was acknowledged as an impacting factor.

To conclude the discussion, participants were provided with the following information on a new website to track the progress on lifting drinking water advisories:

The Government of Canada recently announced that it will be launching a new website, developed with an Indigenous firm. Each community still on a long-term drinking water advisory will have its own web page on the new website with a detailed plan and progress reports

Participants were encouraged by this information and felt that the website was a step in the right direction. There was strong support to use this project and service to demonstrate transparency in the contractual relationships between all companies and government agencies involved to ensure fair businesses practices were occurring. It was also hoped that such a website would demonstrate accountability, thus holding all involved parties accountable to the goal of aiding Indigenous communities.

Digital Government (Lower Mainland B.C. Vaccine Hesitant, Major Centres Ontario Opinion Leaders, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Quebec Anglophones, Manitoba and Saskatchewan EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Toronto-Peel-York Region Hard Hit Sectors)

The topic of digital government was discussed in several groups to better understand participants’ views and expectations of digital service delivery.

As an opening question, participants were asked about the types of services and interactions they associate with the Government of Canada, including those delivered online, by telephone, or in-person. A wide range of services and interactions were cited in response, including:

• Postal services
• Benefits, including pensions payments (e.g., CPP and OAS), Employment Insurance (EI) and various COVID-19-related financial supports
• Employment-related services (e.g., job postings)
• Tax filing, tax refunds and other tax-related services, including tax credits (e.g., the Disability Tax Credit)
• Passports
• Licensing
• Immigration and settlement services
• Cross-border services, including duties and customs
• Services related to federal elections
• Statistics and data

A few participants cited health services (e.g., in-home medical services), an indication that there may have been some confusion in distinguishing between the services offered by various levels of government, particularly those delivered by the federal and provincial levels of government.

In responding to this question, participants noted a number of federal government departments and agencies that they most closely associated with key services to the public such as Canada Post, Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Statistics Canada, Service Canada, Canadian Passport Offices, and Veterans Affairs.

When specifically asked about online Government of Canada services that they have used in the past year, most participants mentioned EI and/or CERB claims, income tax filings, and passport applications/renewals. On balance, most described their experience accessing these services online in positive terms. Government of Canada online services were described as quick, easy and straightforward. Some also remarked on enhancements to security features which they had noted, specifically citing improved security by CRA. And, a number of participants indicated that online services were better relative to services they had received by telephone, where wait times to connect with a service agent were often much longer than they had anticipated. In particular, those who had applied for the CERB described the online experience as fast and easy.

A few participants related experiences they have had interacting online with the Government of Canada that were somewhat less positive. In some cases, the online platform was not viewed as lending itself to readily addressing a more complicated matter (e.g., questions regarding pension benefits) or in providing a clear understanding of eligibility rules for particular programs. Several participants also mentioned that they had used telephone and online services in combination. In these situations, telephone was often used to follow-up on a question or outstanding issue and was seen as a more efficient channel for reaching a speedy resolution. Some suggested adding web-chat features to Government of Canada online services to provide ready access to a service agent who could respond to questions in real-time, thereby avoiding the need to contact a call centre.

Outside the current COVID-19 context, participants expressed mixed views on whether more Government of Canada services should be made available online, although most were generally supportive of moving in this direction. Some felt that a shift online would make access to services quicker for Canadians and generally more convenient. They also saw an advantage to centralizing services online and potentially providing users with a single point of entry or access which may involve using one’s social insurance number (SIN) as the password. However, while some were very comfortable accessing services and information online, others expressed concerns about security issues as well as the possibility that a shift online could result in the elimination of other channels (e.g., telephone). They raised questions about how proof of identity would be confirmed online, specifically when applying for or renewing a passport, and worried that those who are less technically savvy and/or older Canadians may not be served as well. Some participants underscored it was still important to have the option of speaking to a service agent, especially when citizens have very specific queries that may be unique to their personal circumstances.

Many participants struggled to identify what additional services could be shifted online. Furthermore, some assumed that the Government of Canada had already made significant progress in moving more services to an online platform. When pressed, some felt that all tax filings should be completed online and anticipated that this could greatly simplify the process. Others commented that citizens should be able to apply for basic documentation online (e.g., replacement of SIN cards, renewal of passports, birth registrations, etc.).

A few participants suggested that the Government of Canada should do more to better promote the services that are already available online. It was their view that many Canadians are unaware of the full range of information and services that can be accessed online. This was felt to be a key first step as the Government of Canada shifts to making more services available online.

Participants acknowledged a number of benefits associated with making more Government of Canada services available online:

• Convenience for the public/users, particularly for single-parent households and/or those with young children who find it difficult to access services in-person or by phone while also juggling family responsibilities;
• Timeliness of services, and not having to line up in person;
• Greater accessibility, specifically for those residing in rural and more remote parts of the country who may have to travel some distance in order to access services in-person;
• Accuracy of information (as opposed to information relayed by customer service agents by telephone which they thought might vary from one agent to another);
• Secure portals, allowing users to access their own information securely; and
• Cost efficiencies, both for users as well as for the federal government – some participants assumed services could be delivered with a smaller staff complement and that the paper trail could be significantly reduced.

To continue the discussion, participants were shown a list of three possible benefits as follows:

• Having modern digital systems makes it a lot easier for governments to quickly implement big policy changes. For example, it was easier to roll the CERB out quickly because of the digital application and distribution system in place.
• It makes the lives of Canadians easier, because they can complete applications anywhere, anytime, and don’t have to spend time in lineups or on hold.
• Providing more online services to businesses makes Canada more competitive economically because it helps set up businesses and allows them to access the supports they need.

When asked which of these they felt was the most valuable benefit, many focused on the ability of governments to move quickly in implementing policy changes, as well as for Canadians to avoid commuting time to service locations and long line-ups, in addition to being able to interact with government 24/7. Participants underscored the importance of rolling out information and services to the public promptly and felt that, given most Canadians have access to a smart phone, relying more on online services made sense. The point was also made that a shift online would likely lead to greater efficiencies and cost effectiveness for the Government of Canada.

Convenience was specifically cited as a vital benefit, although some participants did note that website functionality is key as any issues in this regard may then lead to a high volume of telephone inquiries which may overwhelm Government of Canada call centres.

A few participants did feel that the benefits to businesses were important, specifically small businesses for which they felt the ability to access online supports from government was crucial given the jobs generated and supported by this sector. At the same time, several participants commented on the importance of ensuring online services to businesses are well executed. Some had experienced poor service online and, as a result, felt more comfortable reaching out by telephone to get the information they and their business required.

Government of Canada’s Digital Strategy

Participants were then shown a series of objectives that could be used to develop the Government of Canada’s digital strategy and asked which one of these it should be working towards:

• Delivering digital services that are secure, reliable and easy to use, from any device.
• Secure, reliable and easy to use, digital services that are built to serve Canadians.
• Secure, reliable and easy to use, transforming how we serve you.
• Secure, reliable and easy to use; services that work for you.
• Transforming your Government of Canada to serve you anytime, anywhere.

While many participants found the statements to be very similar, overall, most participants supported the objectives as described in the first and fourth statements, emphasizing the delivery of digital services that Canadians can access from any device and that work for them. The ability to access digital services across multiple devices was seen as supporting participants’ desire for services that are accessible, easy to use, and convenient. It offered participants a sense of reassurance. This was particularly the case for those participants who commented that their smart phone is the primary device by which they access online services. They underscored the need to ensure that Government of Canada websites are designed with a view to optimizing the online experience across different platforms and variable screen sizes (e.g., responsive web design (RWD)). They also liked the phrase ‘that work for you,’ which was thought to be more universally encompassing. For some participants, it underscored that the Government of Canada would ensure that all Canadians had access to these services. Moreover, they appreciated that the statement was focused on what digital services could offer Canadians and saw this as an attempt by the federal government to tailor services in a way that is more reflective of Canadians’ needs and how they interact with the Government of Canada. The simplicity and brevity of this statement was also appealing for some.

A modest number of participants were drawn to the second and fifth statements, noting the focus on serving Canadians, transforming government and the emphasis on access to service anywhere and anytime. As noted above, they interpreted these statements as meaning the experience would be designed to be specific to Canadians and that it would also be more convenient for Canadians.

Participants appreciated the emphasis on security, reliability and ease of use as a key objective with respect to the Government of Canada’s digital strategy. There was no strong consensus as to which of these three attributes was most important and participants did not necessarily prioritize one of these over another. At the same time some commented that the term ‘reliable’ also encompassed the notion of ‘secure.’ Others noted that security was uppermost in their minds given the prevalence of identity theft and incidents of hacking. A few expressed concerns about the privacy of their personal information as the Government of Canada shifts towards delivering more services online, but ultimately felt the advantages of increased accessibility generally outweighed these concerns. Those who prioritized ease of use did so because they assumed they could count on federal government digital platforms to be both secure and reliable – as such, they were of the view that these objectives did not need to be explicitly stated.

When asked if there were other aspects of digital service delivery that are as, or more, important than those discussed, some focused on speed of service, accessibility in different languages as well as services which are easy to find. Consistency in the experience offered and user-friendliness were also stressed.

Confidence and Trust in Government

Most were confident that the Government of Canada could make the switch to provide more services online which are secure, reliable and easy to use. They commented that the federal government had a highly skilled workforce capable of adapting to an increasingly digital service delivery environment. Moreover, they felt that if other institutions had successfully made this shift, there should be no reason why the Government of Canada could not do the same. In further discussion, participants noted that ensuring reliability and security should be relatively straightforward, although the regular occurrence of cyberattacks was flagged as an ongoing concern for businesses and government alike. Nevertheless, they felt the real the challenge for the federal government would be the time it would take to execute on this strategy as well as the requirement to continually update various websites, ensuring both the functionality and information provided are kept current.

When participants were asked if the ability to deliver services online impacted their level of trust in the Government of Canada, views were split. Those who responded affirmatively felt that online services reflected greater transparency and accountability in government and that this helped to boost their sense of trust. Some also indicated that online service delivery spoke directly to the competence of government which underpinned trust.

Others expressed concerns that their sense of trust could be adversely affected if the switch to online services did not go as well as planned, or if the online architecture resulted in a labyrinthine structure and an onerous experience for users.

A few participants saw no direct link between their level of trust in government and the delivery of services online. These participants noted that trust correlated more closely with the policy decisions that are taken and was less a factor of service delivery mechanisms and platforms.

Home Retrofits (Victoria and Nanaimo B.C., Alberta Indigenous Peoples, Mid-size and Major Centres Alberta Opinion Leaders)

In late March, a few groups of participants engaged in a discussion regarding their familiarity with home retrofitting, future plans to engage in such a renovation and what the Government of Canada could do to support and encourage these home renovations.

Familiarity with Concept of Home Retrofits

There was moderate familiarity among participants on what a home retrofit was. Unaided, participants believed the term referred to the upgrading of appliances and other home features to make them more energy efficient and environmentally friendly. Commonly cited examples included the installation of LED light bulbs and solar panels, replacing windows and investing in new energy efficient appliances. A few also perceived home retrofitting to be centered on the upgrading of existing infrastructure rather than conducting rebuilds.

Among those who were less familiar with home retrofitting, there was an element of confusion in that some believed home retrofitting to be a concept with an urban design focus, rather than one on energy efficiency and environmental features. More specifically, participants mentioned upgrading inner city homes to reduce the demand for urban sprawl and the creation of split-level rental properties out of what was originally a single home.

When prompted with the term ‘energy efficient home retrofits,’ awareness increased. A few participants noted that government rebates are often associated with home retrofitting programs.

Energy Efficient Home Retrofit Plans

For clarity, the following statement was read and participants were asked to comment on whether they planned to undertake energy efficient home retrofits in the next few years.

An energy efficient home retrofit is a home renovation that would make your home more energy efficient, by installing things like better windows, insulation or an energy-efficient furnace. Not only is it good for the environment, but it could also help lower your consumption and energy bills and add value to your home.

Few participants had plans to undertake any energy efficient home retrofits. Among the few who stated they planned to undertake some home retrofits, plans centered on replacing old appliances with new energy efficient appliances. However, participants noted they would only undertake this upgrade once old appliances had failed. Those who did not have plans to do any retrofits mentioned the cost of energy efficient retrofits as a primary barrier or that they were in rental housing where retrofitting decisions were made solely by the landlord. Some also mentioned having recently moved into a brand new home and felt their home came equipped with energy efficient products so no further action was needed.

When asked if an interest-free loan from the federal government would encourage participants to undertake an energy home retrofit, most were not swayed. While some were interested in reducing the financial burden of a renovation through an interest-free loan, many felt they did not want to undertake any new loans. As such, participants perceived a grant or rebate to be the better option, allowing homeowners to reduce the upfront financial burden.

As noted above, receiving a grant proved to be a better motivator. Overall, participants liked the idea of not having to pay back the grant and reducing costs. Some noted that grants could help stimulate the economy while also reducing their future energy bills, making it a win-win situation. When asked how much of a grant they would need to make it worthwhile, participants remarked that they knew little about the realistic expense of home retrofits but nonetheless felt the grant should cover approximately 60-75% of the cost.

Those who were less enthusiastic about a grant worried that accessibility would be an issue. They felt that many deserving families would not qualify because of other factors, such as their insurance. Some expressed they would be more supportive of a grant based home retrofit program if there were minimal restrictions when applying for and accessing funds.

Motivators

Among those who were considering a home retrofit, there were a variety of motivators to undertake such a project. The most frequently cited rationale was financial motivation and reducing long term costs. Many felt that if doing a home energy efficient retrofit was proven to lower energy bills, reduce the cost of living and overall save Canadian’s money, they would be very interested. Additionally, many mentioned the environmental aspect of an energy efficient home retrofit was very appealing. Improving their personal environmental impact, cutting down their environmental footprint, reducing the strain on the electrical grid and taking less from Indigenous lands were viewed as important benefits. A few participants also stated that energy efficient home retrofits were personally appealing as it would make their home more comfortable to live in. While not a popular opinion, a few participants noted that having Canadians cut down on their ecological footprint was a poor selling point, given the associated environmental impacts of producing and packaging the related retrofitted products. Additionally, some participants believed that energy efficient home retrofits should be mandatory in the development of new homes, and some regulations should also be applied to the rental market.