Government of Canada’s Response to COVID-19 (All Locations)

Awareness

Participants in multiple groups said they had heard less in recent weeks about Government of Canada actions in response to the pandemic and in some groups participants struggled to recall any specific activities or announcements. However, a number commented that Canada seemed to be faring better than the US in its management of COVID-19, or referred to the Canadian Armed Forces helping out in long-term care facilities.

Otherwise, across different groups, a scattering of comments alluded to various Government of Canada activities in response to COVID-19, including:

• Benefits to students – some students were specifically aware of a benefit being offered to students, although they offered few details at this point in the discussion.
• Financial support programs – others had heard something about criticism of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) based on the fact that there was no distinction, in terms of the amount being paid, by family size, working status, etc. In the GMA, students also spoke about a program targeting volunteers, as well as financial aid for businesses. Some participants in other groups were vaguely familiar with a program to provide financial assistance to seniors. In BC, participants also mentioned the financial assistance being offered by the provincial government, in the amount of $1000, in addition to the CERB being offered by the Government of Canada. In this group, discussion of the CERB prompted questions and concerns about both the duration of the benefit (there was a comment that it had initially been offered for 7 months, but then shortened to 4) and the tax implications for those who received it erroneously. Others made reference to funding being given to landlords as well as students on visas, and paid sick leave.
• Face masks – a very small number of participants recalled guidance being given to wear a non-medical face mask where the 6-foot physical distance can’t be maintained.

Some also mentioned other initiatives, such as banks offering mortgage relief or a temporary pandemic pay increase for eligible frontline and support workers (implemented by the Government of Ontario).

Perceptions

There was a widespread view across many groups that the Government of Canada had generally been doing a good job of managing the pandemic. Overall, the Government was seen to have responded quickly on economic issues, making a wide range of financial supports available. The CERB was most often referred to in this regard. Others commented that, by comparison to other countries, Canada’s government had responded well.

Some participants in Western Canada felt the roll-out of various financial assistance programs should have been based on income testing or some other more precise targeting approach. But, at the same time, some acknowledged that there was a need to get financial assistance out to people quickly. This did, however, raise questions about downstream tax liabilities for individual recipients of subsidies as well as the overall impact on the government’s fiscal situation. There were also concerns that while there were supports for many groups and sectors, assistance for seniors had come a bit late, by comparison. Some participants also disagreed with younger adults receiving the same payment as families or older adults, based on a sense that the former had lower annual incomes and fewer financial responsibilities. Several participants also commented that, looking back to the initial response, the Government of Canada could have closed the Canada-US border to non-essential travel much earlier. There was general agreement that the early response to the pandemic had been slow.

Very few suggestions were put forward as to what else the Government of Canada should be doing at this time. The following reflects suggestions by just one or two people in various groups:

• More assistance for students and support for graduates entering the workforce during the pandemic;
• Additional financial assistance for small businesses;
• Modifying programs like the CERB to incentivize return to work;
• Evaluating the long-term implications with respect to the impact of the pandemic on various communities, specifically in terms of financial consequences and employment;
• Mandating airlines to refund passengers who had booked tickets they were subsequently unable to use, as they have done in the US;
• Ensuring those who return to work are supplied with PPE and, generally, making people feel more safe during the reopening phase;
• More widespread testing across the board, but specifically in airports for those coming into Canada from overseas;
• Restricting gatherings in some public spaces (i.e., parks);
• Exploring universal basic income;
• Considering extending the CERB especially for people who don’t qualify for Employment Insurance (EI);
• More communications clarifying the guidance on the use of face masks, based on a sense that there had been “mixed messaging” initially communicated; and
• Reassuring the public that individual rights and freedoms will not be encroached upon, particularly as measures such as isolation were required and contact testing and tracing is being considered.

Across most of the groups held during the month of May, participants were asked about the ways in which they were being personally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, including whether they have themselves had the virus, or knew of someone else who had, in addition to adapting their behaviours as a result of the virus.

Experience with Symptoms of COVID-19 (GTA Students, GMA Students, Major Centres Ontario, Interior BC Parents, Major Centres Atlantic Unemployed, Small Town Quebec, Lower Mainland BC, Rural Quebec Parents, Saskatoon, Calgary)

In all groups, at least one or two individuals knew of someone who had experienced the symptoms of COVID-19, typically a friend or a relative, and in a few instances reported having personally experienced symptoms of the virus.

A small number of participants in the various groups mentioned that they had themselves been tested, or knew of others who had been tested, with results coming back negative for the virus. In one or two instances, participants commented that they felt they may at one point early on have had COVID-19, given symptoms they exhibited, and based on the opinion of their physician. But, these participants noted they could not be entirely certainly as the test was not available at the time.

While many participants spoke about friends and relatives who have since recovered from COVID-19, some across all the groups knew of people who had passed away as a result of the virus. These were typically elderly individuals, some of whom had been living in seniors’ residences. In Calgary, there was mention of an outbreak of the virus at a local Purolator depot, an issue with which most participants were familiar. In this group, one of the participants had connections with Purolator through their own work and had heard of a driver who was asymptomatic, but later tested positive for the virus.

What to do if symptoms develop

Most participants were aware of the steps to take in the event they developed the symptoms of COVID-19. Most volunteered that they would quarantine themselves and, if they did not improve, they would get tested. Those who felt they had experienced the symptoms described it as “the worst possible flu,” accompanied by coughing, loss of sense of smell and extreme lethargy.

Generally, participants were fairly well versed on what to do if they experience the symptoms of the virus. As noted, the most common response, at least as a first step, was quarantine, along with connecting with a physician to discuss symptoms. Students in the GTA mentioned calling the health line (i.e., Tele-Health), going to their family doctor, placing themselves in quarantine for 14 days, and getting tested. By contrast, students in the GMA were somewhat more hesitant when asked if they knew what to do. Most indicated they would self-isolate, but some also indicated they may not call the health line unless their symptoms worsened, while another in the same group talked about breathing exercises and dietary changes that could help boost one’s immune system. Among participants in Interior BC, some suggested they would use an online self-assessment tool, call 811 (a provincial health information phone line), the coronavirus hotline, or their own doctor, and/or go to the hospital to be tested if the self-assessment recommended doing so as a next step. In this group, the reference was to a self-assessment tool on the provincial government website, specifically an app that can be downloaded. In Saskatoon, participants also alluded to self-assessment tools online, both the provincial and federal government tools available on their respective websites. Participants in this group were somewhat reluctant to call 811, recalling a high volume on the phone lines and earlier advice that only those exhibiting clear symptoms should call, to avoid excessive 811 calls. In Calgary, participants referred to calling 311 (local government information and non-emergency services phone line), but also mentioned quarantining for 10-14 days and, if no improvement was noticeable over that period, going to a testing facility.

A number of participants viewed themselves as being at lower risk of getting the virus, due to their age or the fact that they felt generally healthy. On the other hand, there were also some participants who were especially worried, given underlying health conditions which they or a member of their family had and which put them at greater risk.

Behaviour Changes (Major Centres Ontario Stressed, Interior BC Parents, Major Centres Atlantic Unemployed, Small Town Quebec, Lower Mainland BC, Rural Quebec Parents, Saskatoon, Calgary, Mid-sized Centres Ontario Unemployed, Quebec City, Rural/Small Town Prairies, Halifax)

With few exceptions, many reported modifying their behaviours in ways that had varying degrees of impact on their lives, including social distancing, working from home and general home isolation, in addition to home-schooling of children. In all groups, it was clear that the majority of participants’ routines have altered as they have adapted to living through a pandemic.

Home isolation and physical distancing

Most participants were spending the majority of their time at home, although a number of participants also noted that they were getting out regularly for exercise, albeit doing so while appropriately social distancing.

Very few, with the exception of those in rural and small towns across Quebec, spoke about having stockpiled any items (e.g., coffee and canned goods) in anticipation of a lengthy period of isolation.

While some participants had been laid off from their jobs, others were combining working from home with other family responsibilities. For many, the daily routine involved working, parenting, exercising either outdoors or indoors with the help of online work-out videos, and cleaning. A number of participants commented on having more time to exercise and, in some instances, making it a priority during this time to get outside for long walks or bike rides. The balance of participants across all groups commented that they left home rather infrequently, primarily to go to work, pick up groceries or other items, and take walks or cycle. When asked how frequently they left home, participants’ responses varied from daily to weekly, or less frequently than that, depending on the nature of their needs and lifestyle, and specifically how active they were.

Some participants spoke of the challenges of isolation and, particularly for those who tended to be more extroverted, the struggles associated with a lack of regular social connection. In this vein, a few participants mentioned having resumed smoking or consuming more alcohol as a means of lessening the boredom and reducing the stress associated with isolation.

Many appeared to be adhering to physical distancing guidance and, in a few cases, were maintaining distancing quite strictly within their own household over concerns that their jobs meant they were potentially exposing other family members.

Some continued to socialize online, but admitted having found it difficult to deal with both the uncertainty and extended periods of time without socializing or personal contact. In the group among residents of mid-sized centres in Ontario, several participants alluded to feeling ‘isolation fatigue,’ and talked about the effect on their mood as well as their waning patience for enduring further isolation. Some had initiated conversations about seeing other family members, beyond those with whom they have been isolating, especially around milestone events such as birthdays, etc. Others were getting together for visits with friends, while maintaining social distancing, although they expressed some concerns about doing so. Several participants in various groups alluded to the onset of nicer weather which they felt would likely draw more people outdoors, although they did not seem overly concerned about the ability to maintain social distancing outside.

Some participants in Halifax, which was the last group held at the end of May, mentioned that they had begun to get out more – for take-out food, bike rides and other activities. These participants noted that they had been more fearful in April, but were now feeling somewhat more comfortable especially in terms of ‘extending their bubbles’ to include other family members, particularly those who are elderly.

Work

A number of employed participants were adapting to working remotely. For some, with other family members also at home, it was challenging. For others, the slower pace of work afforded an opportunity to reconnect with family members and enjoy family activities, in isolation. In these instances, they felt that the pandemic had given them an extraordinary opportunity to spend significantly more time with family. Similarly, several participants spoke about the time saved from not having to commute to work daily.

Among those who were not working, financial pressures had been exacerbated as the economic impact of the virus had limited job prospects and opportunities.

Sanitary precautions

A number of participants commented on the stringent sanitary precautions they take when leaving and returning to their home. Most participants agreed that they are handwashing more regularly and some mentioned carrying hand sanitizer with them at all times. Others mentioned being very cautious about handling their cell phones, touching doorknobs, as well as refraining from picking items up and putting them back on shelves in retail outlets. A minority appeared to be practicing even more rigorous hygiene, for example, changing and washing clothes when they came in from outdoors before greeting other family members. Others talked about being highly conscious of cleanliness, in general, and using disinfectants more liberally and more frequently.

Masks

A few participants commented on wearing a face mask, although this was generally not the norm. A more specific line of questioning on this topic was asked of participants in certain of the focus groups over the month of May. These findings are reported on separately (see page 32).

Shopping

Participants talked about the changes to their shopping habits. Some participants indicated that they consciously avoided going out unless there was an essential need for a particular item. A number have found that, because they shop less frequently, they were more organized when they did go out and tended to spend more time in stores ensuring they got what they needed in order to avoid additional trips. A few participants spoke about tasking certain members of their household with this responsibility, to limit the exposure of the household to the virus. In particular, some parents commented that they have not taken their children into a store in some time for this reason.

A few participants, although not many, mentioned having their groceries delivered or doing curbside pick-up.

Some participants noted that maintaining social distancing while grocery shopping was perhaps the most difficult adjustment to make.

Parenting and the Impacts of COVID-19 on Children and Youth

Many parents spoke about the demands of supervising and entertaining children which, for some, also required balancing child care with work responsibilities. In some instances, participants felt considerable stress associated with the additional responsibility which has led to mental health concerns and the need, in some cases, to seek assistance.

In particular, parents commented on the challenges, both for themselves and their children, of home schooling and online learning. While some have been able to get into a bit of a routine, a number of participants indicated that the daily schedule has become busier, more erratic and chaotic. For some parents, there has been a steep learning curve both in terms of the technology required to assist children in submitting assignments, but also with respect to creating some level of structure in their children’s day. In some cases, family sleeping patterns have been dramatically altered, as children (and parents) were going to bed much later and starting their day much later as well.

Parents talked about the difficulties of managing two sets of responsibilities while at home – their own work obligations as well as their children’s schooling.

Most parents said they have spoken quite bluntly to their children about the issues and challenges of self-isolation and social distancing. In particular, parents have shared information about the illness, its origins, the symptoms and the consequences for the family if one person in the household were to become ill with COVID-19. Parents focused primarily on how the virus impacts them and their routine, rather than on more difficult subjects, including the death rate from the disease.

Many spoke about the difficult adjustment for their children in not being able to attend school, see their friends and other family members. The school schedule in particular was difficult to maintain and, while some parents initially had the best intentions of imposing fairly regular hours of school work, this had started to loosen up more recently. For example, some had started with a 6 hours per day/5 days per week schedule of online learning and had recently now shifted to an hour per day/two days per week. Parents’ remarks seemed to suggest that boredom was becoming a real issue at this time. And, parents themselves were struggling with the challenge of a relentless parenting schedule, witnessing more arguments among siblings. Nevertheless, they continued to look for creative ways to entertain and teach their children – a few parents mentioned conducting in-home science experiments with their children to teach them about germs, specifically how even if you can’t see them, they still exist.

At the same time, the adjustment for some children, and parents, was quite dramatic. Some parents were noticing increased anxiety levels and alarm, particularly among younger children who worried about contracting the virus, getting ill or worse. Parents recognized the sensitivity of their children and the concerns that many have about the health of older family members, grandparents in particular. Eliminating the possibility of inadvertently exposing older or frail family members to the virus was an argument that parents put to children and which their children appeared to understand. However, parents indicated that it had become more challenging to maintain as time wore on, especially as children wanted to visit with relatives.

Conversations between parents and children were heavily dependent on the child’s age and ability to absorb and understand the information about the virus. In the group in rural Quebec, parents mentioned using analogies to better explain concepts such as social distancing (e.g., explaining that Sidney Crosby has to social distance and, for this reason, the NHL has paused the hockey season). In other instances, it was the children who were taking parents to task over social distancing, particularly those with older children working in health care or related areas. Parents’ comments suggested they were taking an ‘age appropriate’ approach to talking to their children and some indicated that there had to be an element of trust as part of these conversations given that they couldn’t supervise their children full-time.

Assistance for Parents and Communicating with Parents/Children (Interior BC Parents, and Rural Quebec Parents)

When asked what kind of assistance parents might find helpful, few suggestions were put forward. In Interior BC, parents commented that the best solution would be to get children back to school and daycare and to do so safely which could mean staggering school hours or days, for example. This reflected a general feeling that parents simply needed some relief or respite.

In rural Quebec, parents felt adequately supported with homeschooling and learning materials from their children’s teachers. What they lacked, they said, was more structure on what exactly needed to be done.

In terms of communicating or providing information for parents, suggestions included providing lists of available resources for parents, reaching out to young people via social media channels such as TikTok, or having celebrities popular with this age group send encouraging messages.

Personal Inconveniences (All Locations except Interior BC Parents and Halifax)

Self-isolation was associated with a number of inconveniences, many of which mirrored some of the behaviour changes noted above:

• Missing contact with other family members – several participants spoke of not being able to see children or grandchildren
• Absence of school – some students questioned the value of their post-secondary education given tuition fees and the shift to online classes
• Home-schooling – as previously noted, parents found this challenging, and even more so for those parents with ‘special needs’ children
• Loss of employment
• Managing work and family responsibilities, including the absence of day care
• Challenges completing regular work duties and responsibilities – some participants mentioned traveling and meeting with clients frequently prior to the onset of COVID-19 and noted the difficulty in building and sustaining customer relationships during the pandemic
• Having to manage on one’s own – this was particularly challenging for single parents
• Absence of sports activities
• Cancellation of certain events (i.e., convocations) and travel plans
• Complications associated with completing daily or weekly tasks – shopping, for example, now takes longer given the need to wait in line-ups. Additionally, some participants commented that certain stores are requiring masks and will charge customers if they do not have one
• General fear, anxiety, boredom, uncertainty and restrictions associated with isolation
• Others who are not complying with physical distancing
• Postponements to medical appointments
• Inability to travel or take weekend trips

On balance, participants were of the view that they would find it at least somewhat difficult to maintain social distancing for several more months. While there was general acknowledgement that people would adhere to these requirements if they had to, the difficulty would stem more from mental fatigue and the absence of connection with family and friends. Participants felt that people may soon reach a ‘breaking point’ and, in fact, some were already noticing others being less compliant with social distancing measures. Weather was mentioned as having a tempering effect on likely compliance, as summer conditions may facilitate easier social distancing outdoors. Remarks suggested that a number of participants were anxious to experience their freedom, connect socially, engage in recreational pursuits and rejoin sports leagues, for example. At the same time, others commented that reopening would pose another set of challenges as people get used to dealing with greater personal interactivity, while still abiding by general safety guidelines.

A few participants did note having mixed feelings about maintaining social distancing. These participants have found some joy in a more relaxed lifestyle and ‘enforced’ stay-at-home measures. At the same time, they are anxious to return to some sense of normalcy, if not simply to ensure their own financial security.

Impact across Communities of Various Sizes (All Locations except Lower Mainland BC and Quebec City)

Most participants identified various ways in which COVID-19 impacts communities of different sizes, although there was no clear consensus as to whether communities larger or smaller than their own were, on balance, better or worse able to deal with the virus and the measures taken to stem the spread of the virus.

Those residing in larger centres (in Ontario, BC, Atlantic Canada, Saskatoon, and Calgary) acknowledged that the number of cases was higher in urban centres, as compared to rural and remote areas. As such, some concluded that it was likely more difficult for those living in urban and suburban areas, particularly those with higher density such as the GTA, to practice adequate social distancing while out shopping or simply walking from one location to another. These participants tended to think that those residing in smaller towns and rural areas might find it easier to get groceries (fewer line-ups) and to go about their regular activities without fear of being exposed to the virus. A number of participants mentioned having relatives or friends who live in smaller towns who were unfazed by the virus. They also commented that, in smaller towns, people generally know each other well and, as a result, can be more trusting. For this reason, they assumed that the situation would generally be less stressful in these areas. Others commented on the distinction within urban areas between those residing in the downtown core and those living suburban areas, noting that distancing is more difficult in the former relative to the latter.

Participants in smaller centres and more rural communities pointed to the vast outdoor spaces which they had access to and enjoy. They commented that it is much easier to social distance on a trail or in areas where homes are spaced well apart, compared to urban settings where streets and sidewalks can become easily congested. Some participants felt that urban residents were not respecting social distancing guidelines, having heard about incidents of large groups of people clustering on beaches. They did acknowledge that, with more outdoor space, those in smaller, rural and remote centers find it easier to social distance compared to those living in apartments, condos, and townhomes who may not have adequate space.

In all locations most participants had heard something about wearing face masks, principally that doing so was recommended by public health officials, particularly in places where it might be difficult to maintain a 2 metre physical distance.

In all locations, with the exception of Halifax, participants generally agreed that face masks were effective, primarily in preventing the spread of COVID-19 to others, rather than protecting themselves. In Ontario, some participants pointed to the examples of Singapore and Taiwan, noting the vital role that the compulsory use of face masks has played in controlling the spread of the virus in those countries.

In Halifax, only a few participants initially agreed that face masks were effective, although as the discussion progressed, others who were initially skeptical reached the same conclusion.

As noted above, many participants were of the view that face masks were useful in limiting the spread of COVID-19 as a means of protecting others when in confined spaces. Some related concerns that people may not be informed on the proper use of face masks, specifically citing examples of people touching the face mask repeatedly and masks that slip off people’s faces. Others questioned the efficacy of different types of masks, specifically noting that N95 masks worn mostly by health care workers are intended to protect both the wearer and others. In Halifax, the general consensus was that face masks are only effective if everyone is wearing one.

Half or more of participants in each group said they wore a face mask regularly, although some indicated they did so mainly when they were shopping rather than every time they were outdoors or in a public area. Some noted they did not need to wear masks as they were able to maintain the 2 metre distance easily. In Halifax, a few participants were disinclined to wear face masks mainly because they were not deemed to be mandatory at the time and, as one participant noted, there was a concern that they were in short supply.

When asked more specifically about when they started to wear a face mask and under what circumstances, responses varied widely and were situationally-dependent. Some began wearing masks before they were recommended, while others took up the practice only once strong recommendations to do so were given by public health officials and/or political leaders. Some participants began wearing face masks because they were continuing to work and they were concerned about the risk of exposure to the virus in the workplace. Others mentioned wearing masks while visiting other family members, typically older relatives. Still others noted that they were not wearing a face mask habitually, only when in a store, in order to raise others’ comfort level and to demonstrate a level of respectfulness of others’ safety. At the same time, some expressed feelings of discomfort wearing a mask, specifically worries that it may make them appear weak.

Most were generally aware of the Government of Canada recommendations on wearing a face mask and, unprompted, indicated that the guidance was to wear a mask whenever physical distancing is not possible, as a means of stopping the spread of the virus.

Participants were given more clarification around the Government of Canada recommendation, as follows, and asked whether it goes too far, is about right, or does not go far enough.

The Government of Canada recommends wearing a homemade non-medical mask/facial covering for periods of time when it is not possible to consistently maintain a 2-metre physical distance from others, particularly in crowded public settings, such as stores, shopping areas and public transportation.

A majority of participants in each group felt the recommendation was about right, although the remainder tended to feel that it did not go far enough. In no group did any participant tend to feel that the recommendation went too far. Among those who thought the government recommendation should be stronger, most felt they should be doing more to encourage more people to wear masks, either by mandating it or at least by communicating the importance and benefits of doing so.

Some expressed concerns that the positioning of communications on face masks as a ‘recommendation’ meant that some will choose to ignore the advice. However, it if were to be mandated, the expectation from some participants was that the Government should be supplying masks to all Canadians on a regular basis. Others expressed concerns about making face masks compulsory. Their comments centered on several specific issues:

• The general difficulties of imposing mandatory face masks across the board;
• Comparisons of this issue with smoking, specifically that some members of the public will elect not to follow the advice whether it is recommended or mandated; and
• Situations in which most participants agreed a mask shouldn’t be required, for example, when walking outdoors in areas where physical distancing is not a problem. By contrast, some felt that it may be acceptable to mandate face masks in the workplace, when shopping or when entering any building open to the public.

Those who participated in focus group discussions which took place in the latter part of May, at which time some jurisdictions were in the initial stages of more extensive reopening, were queried about what was happening in their communities and, in particular, how they felt about it.

Participants commented that, across the various locations, different types of retail outlets, service providers and outdoor recreational facilities were beginning to reopen, including, for example: shopping centres, ‘big box’ hardware and clothing stores, some restaurants, more bank branches, dental and physiotherapy clinics, beauty and hair salons, and provincial parks. The schedule for reopening varied across jurisdictions as did participants’ views about the process.

Many participants welcomed reopening and were especially pleased that public health officials were reinforcing messaging about social distancing with the public and businesses. While there was general consensus that it was time to reopen, indeed inevitable and necessary from an economic and mental health perspective, participants also cautioned that it needed to be done carefully to limit further spread of the virus and the likelihood of a second wave. Some participants used the terms “slowly,” “measured,” “gradual” and “controlled” to describe their view of how it should be managed. There was some concern that with reopening, people might let their guard down both in terms of social distancing and other sanitary/hygiene measures. A number of participants said they had seen clear evidence of ‘isolation fatigue’ suggesting that some people were reaching a point where they felt unable to stay isolated or distanced. Although most participants agreed that the positives of reopening outweighed the negatives, they also worried that some members of the public would not be responsible. Essentially, participants were somewhat conflicted – anxious about exposure to the virus as a result of reopening, but also about the long-term economic impacts, both domestically and globally, of delaying.

In Ontario, some participants commented that reopening should be undertaken in a highly controlled fashion, specifically limiting larger groups of people from getting together. The recent crowds at Trinity Bellwood were raised as an example of how a ‘domino’ effect could occur with the combination of warmer weather and pent-up desire for social gatherings. Some also felt that there was not necessarily a strong rationale for reopening the physical premises of certain types of businesses when consumers could continue to purchase items online. Participants described the desire of some consumers to shop in-store as “frivolous.”

In Quebec City and Calgary, a few participants referred to reopening as a “test” or an “experiment.” In Calgary, some expressed uncertainty about the timing of reopening because they were unsure whether the province had been able to flatten the curve successfully. They worried about reopening being an experiment at heart, and were concerned about another spike in infections which they felt might be even worse than the initial wave. At the same time, they felt it would be unrealistic to wait for a vaccine to become available, which some speculated could be at least a year to 18 months away. In the meantime, suggestions were made to conduct more tests and contact tracing, and to enforce regulations.

In virtually every group, a few participants noted that they were not prepared, at this time, to venture out more regularly into public spaces, whether for work, pleasure or otherwise. A number of participants were concerned that their employers may not be prepared to reopen and hadn’t heard from them about safety protocols, including the availability of PPE for staff. Others questioned how their employers would ensure that their staff are complying with social distancing both in and outside of the workplace, to limit the risk for everyone. These kinds of concerns were contributing to higher levels of anxiety, even among those who admitted that they don’t ordinarily suffer from this issue.

Government of Canada Economic and Financial Initiatives

There was a fairly high level of general, and in some cases more specific, awareness of the various initiatives undertaken by the Government of Canada to combat the economic impact of COVID-19. On an unprompted basis, many participants commented that the federal government had responded to the pandemic quickly and in a significant way in terms of the wide-ranging financial supports directed to workers, businesses, tenants, and frontline health care workers, among other groups.

While many were scarce on the details, some participants mentioned programs such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) by name, often referring to it by the acronym. Others mentioned the wage subsidy. Although they did not refer to this program by its official name (the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy or CEWS), some were aware of the 75% subsidy level.

In addition, participants pointed to a broad array of initiatives, on a top-of-mind basis, including: help for smaller and larger businesses including interest-free loans, partnerships with the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) to assist businesses, rent relief, extensions to student loans, additional time to file tax returns, and an increase in the Child Tax Benefit, among others. There was a general sense that the Government of Canada was offering a fairly generous suite of programs and financial support, in terms of projected expenditures, aimed at keeping businesses afloat and people employed. Some participants conflated Government of Canada initiatives and those launched by other institutions, such as free day care for essential workers (Government of Ontario), or banks providing the option of deferring mortgage payments.

Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB)

The vast majority of participants were aware of the CERB, mostly because they had applied for it themselves or knew of someone who had. Some participants acknowledged being somewhat confused by certain aspects of the benefit, specifically referring to the roll-out of the benefit and the eligibility criteria, the relationship between CERB and employment insurance (EI) (especially for those who initially applied for EI), and concerns that some individuals may have to pay back the amount they have received from the CERB at tax time.

On the issue of the CERB and EI, there was considerable confusion among those who applied for EI and had expected to receive a different level of income support than what is offered through the CERB. Some were aware that claims for EI made after March 15, 2020 were automatically shifted to the CERB, while others were not. Nevertheless, participants were generally aware that the program is offered to those who have lost their jobs due to COVID-19 and comprises a payment of $500 per week, for a total of $2,000 monthly over a 4-month period. Only one participant in Quebec City was aware that, in order to qualify, individuals must have earned at least $5,000 through employment income or benefits such as EI in the last 12 months.

In the group held among residents of major centres in the Atlantic region, participants were asked about how COVID-19 had affected their household’s financial situation and their ability to manage through the crisis for an extended period of time. Several participants spoke about their reliance on the CERB, although for some who had lost their jobs and income, the benefit did not come close to making up the difference. Couples for whom one member was still fully employed at their regular wage or salary level were more comfortable with the level of the Benefit.

Specific examples of the financial pressures facing individuals were raised, such as post-secondary tuition or mortgage payments.

Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS)

By contrast, awareness of the CEWS was more variable across groups. It was lower in the groups conducted in Major Centres in Ontario and Atlantic Canada groups, and somewhat higher in the groups among those in Small Towns and Rural Quebec, Calgary, Mid-sized Centres in Ontario and Quebec City. Lower levels of awareness seemed to be correlated with a lack of personal relevance as, for some, the program did not directly affect them.

For those who had heard something about the program, the details were not entirely clear. Some were under the impression that, to qualify, an employee needed to earn less than a certain amount annually, while others weren’t entirely sure about the level of the subsidy (noting it was between 70% and 80%). Others, had heard about the program evolving over time, commenting that the current subsidy had increased significantly from 20%-25% when it was first announced to levels which were now more on par with what some European countries were providing. A few participants in various groups were familiar with the requirement for organizations to demonstrate a loss of revenue directly as a result of COVID-19, which they said was in the order of about 30%, while others commented that the idea behind the program was to keep workers off the CERB and employed, even if they were not actually working.

Some participants commented that the program included many qualifiers and caveats, making it challenging for organizations to determine if they would qualify for the subsidy.

Seniors Benefit (All Locations, except GTA Students, GMA Students, Major Centres Ontario Stressed, Interior BC Parents)

Participants were also asked if they had heard anything about support for seniors. In most groups, participants had heard something, although most were not familiar with the details. Some suggested that the program had been announced relatively recently and involved sums of $300 and/or an additional $200. In the group held among participants residing in Major Centres in Atlantic Canada, some also commented that no application was required and that it was a one-time payment which was linked to Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS).

Several were paying close attention to support for seniors because of their own personal circumstances – having a parent or grandparent who might benefit. In a number of groups, questions about the program centered on whether it was a one-time payment and if the payment was intended for low-income seniors only. One or two participants also questioned the origin of the program, indicating they were unsure if this was a federal or provincial initiative.

Initial views on the program were somewhat mixed to negative. The main criticism was that the program was initiated quite late, compared to the timing of financial support for other audiences. Several participants felt that seniors should have been among the first groups to have received financial support. Others commented that, while the payment was a welcome injection, some seniors are fairly well off and don’t need it. Some participants expressed concerns about the cost of the program, particularly if they felt it wasn’t necessarily making a significant difference for many seniors.

A number of participants took the opportunity at this point in the discussion to mention their concerns about the health and safety of seniors in long-term care facilities noting that some changes needed to be made in these facilities to further protect seniors and staff from COVID-19.

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

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

Quebec City was the only group in which all participants concluded the payment was fair.

Most others, however, were of the view that the payments were not especially fair, although they came to this opinion from different perspectives. Some felt a one-time payment of the amounts indicated was insufficient, especially given the level of support going to other groups, for example, support for students and others who have access to the CERB. A number of participants expressed particular concern that seniors are the group most at risk and many do not have adequate retirement plans or are living below the poverty line.

Even among those few who felt the payment was fair, many still questioned whether it shouldn’t be higher given a significant percentage of seniors struggle on fixed budgets. They felt that this level of support simply didn’t go far enough to cover basic expenses such as groceries, etc. Some felt the amount was unacceptable based on a larger sense that seniors generally deserved more support in retirement, especially since they had paid taxes throughout their lives. Some recommended that consideration should be given to continuing payments once the pandemic was over.

For others who questioned the payment in the first place, again this information did not alter their views. They continued to wonder how seniors’ circumstances had changed markedly as a result of COVID-19, and specifically pondered how their cost of living had increased given that the price of goods and services had generally not increased, and in some cases had decreased (e.g. gasoline prices). Some participants were of the view that seniors’ financial position had in fact improved through COVID-19 as they were spending less. This perspective caused a debate in some groups where other participants countered that seniors who are isolated may now have to purchase services (e.g., deliveries) that they would otherwise have done independently. At the same time, others commented that some kind of income test should have been implemented to ensure the payment could be more directly targeted to those most in need.

Throughout the discussion, comments suggested that participants were conflating issues of the financial impact of COVID-19 on seniors with the broader financial pressures facing seniors regardless of the pandemic, notably increased medical needs, and corresponding expenses. As such, support to seniors was being evaluated within this broader context.

In a number of groups, participants were offered further clarification about financial support for seniors:

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

When asked whether this information changed how they felt about the one-time OAS and GIS payments of up to $500, many still had questions and generally felt the payment was insufficient. For the most part, this additional information did not appear to impact their views. Many stood by their initial reaction and continued to express concerns about seniors’ health and medical expenses, the fact that they have paid taxes throughout their lifetime, and what they viewed as a general inequity between the treatment of seniors during COVID-19 and other groups. Some were particularly concerned about the situation for low income seniors.

In groups in Saskatoon and with residents of mid-sized centres in Ontario, participants noted they did not feel they had enough information to gauge whether the payment was, on balance, fair or unfair, even with the additional clarification.

CERB, CEWS and Budget Deficits (Mid-Sized Centres Ontario Unemployed, Quebec City, Rural and Small Town Prairies, Halifax)

In several groups, before continuing the discussion about the financial measures taken by the Government of Canada to address the economic impact of COVID-19, participants were given some additional clarification on the CERB and the CEWS:

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

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

Knowing this, participants were asked to consider three options:

1. The Government of Canada should be doing more, even if it means a larger deficit than projected

2. The Government of Canada should continue with current levels of support that are being offered through programs like the CERB and CEWS

3. The Government of Canada should try to reduce spending, even though it means scaling back some of these programs.

Overwhelmingly, participants recommended that these programs should be continued at their current levels. This also led to conversations about implementing a universal basic income, especially given expected economic dislocation and fundamental changes to the economy, in addition to a likely phased approach to bringing people back to work. There was a sense that the goal of buttressing the economy outweighed any other concerns and that now was not the time to be cutting spending. Both the CERB and the CEWS were seen as providing much needed stimulus to the economy and as critical to some people who might otherwise be unable to pay their rent or mortgage, for example. Without these supports, as some participants in Halifax noted, there would likely be a ripple effect which would be even more detrimental to the economy.

The main objection to doing more was the inevitability of having to address larger deficits sometime in the future. No one favoured a reduction in spending or scaling back these programs across the board. Even among participants in the Prairies, where several participants favoured curtailing some programs, they cautioned the need to do so gradually and in a way that considered the specific circumstances of each industry.

When told that these measures are estimated to cost billions of dollars, and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said this will result in a much higher federal deficit, participants generally continued to favour maintaining current levels of support. At the same time, many expressed some concerns about deficit spending, although the more important and immediate goal was seen to be survival and recovery. This discussion also prompted some participants to raise issues around abuse of the programs and how spending now might mean higher taxes later.

Still, others felt that the worst is yet to come in terms of the economic impact. Although many were worried about the longer term impacts and specifically the effect on future generations whom they felt would ultimately be required to pay down the accumulating debt, relatively few in most groups felt that the federal government was spending excessively on COVID-19. Some, in Lower Mainland BC, described the situation as a “Catch-22” meaning that governments could have chosen to use other mechanisms (i.e., manipulation of interest rates) instead of increasing spending, but either way it would result in having to tackle the issue now or in the future. In Rural Quebec, although some participants felt that Canada was in a much better position to deal with the economic fall-out of COVID-19 compared to other countries, others raised the prospect that spending to bolster the economy may result in cuts to other areas such as health care, or increases in the cost of other goods and services (e.g., hydroelectricity rates).

In most groups, the general view was that governments, including the Government of Canada, are doing what is required at this time to deal with the situation. Many acknowledged that these are uncertain times and that the situation facing Canadians and others around the world is unprecedented. In Saskatoon, some participants volunteered that it’s difficult to know what exactly is the right approach to take, given there are no previous examples on a similar scale from which to draw or take lessons. While admitting concern, these participants also felt they had insufficient expertise to speculate on the long-term consequences of actions that the Government of Canada is taking now. They simply hoped that those experts and policy-makers working behind the scenes in government were putting a solid recovery plan in place. In Quebec City, participants described the current situation as a “crisis,” and noted that governments should not be run as businesses. As such, they were generally comfortable with deficit spending.

Levels of concern about spending levels were more evident in Calgary as well as among participants in mid-sized centres in Ontario and to a lesser extent in Halifax – albeit for different reasons. As in other groups, while there was a tendency to support spending now in order to save jobs, livelihoods and lives, many were deeply concerned about the long-term impact and shifting responsibility for the costs to subsequent generations. Some in Halifax were prepared to see taxes increase while others were concerned about large corporations asking for bailouts (which they felt would be a poor use of government funds), or worried about other government programs being curtailed or eliminated in the near-term as a means of keeping overall spending manageable.

In effect, many participants held the view that the Government of Canada was doing the best it could under very challenging circumstances. Most agreed that it had few alternatives. Nevertheless, a contingent of participants in virtually every group expressed varying degrees of concern about the downstream impact of an increasing debt on future generations.

As the discussion progressed, participants were further questioned regarding their tolerance for deficit spending, specifically with respect to maintaining programs such as the CERB and the CEWS as the economy reopens. When thinking about whether these programs should be eliminated, scaled back or maintained until the economy returns to full capacity, participants offered mixed responses. While a number thought these benefits should stay in place given that reopening would likely occur in stages, several recommended that the programs should be modified to ensure that people are incentivized to return to work. Some advanced the idea of income testing, to direct benefits to those most in need. Others suggested that programs like Employment Insurance (EI) and welfare should replace the CERB once the economy stabilized.

Many participants felt comfortable scaling these programs back as the economy reopens, the assumption being that most would rather work and receive their regular paycheque, as opposed to relying on the CERB. At the same time, others described particular circumstances where someone may be physically able to return to work, but may not be able to do so, due to other caregiving responsibilities (e.g. being unable to send an immunocompromised child back to school). Nevertheless, the option of scaling back programs like the CERB and CEWS seemed a reasonable compromise approach to many participants. At the same time, participants commented that the programs may still be required for those working in sectors or industries that don’t rebound quickly (e.g., air travel), or in cases where employers may not be in a position to bring back all employees.

And, as the economy opens up, participants felt stricter eligibility requirements could be put in place to ensure these programs are targeting those who are unable to go back to work for reasons of health or their work environment, and that they are structured in such a way as to encourage a return to work. A number of participants commented that the current CERB payment exceeds what some people would earn in their day-to-day jobs, thereby acting as a disincentive. While not wishing to cancel the program, participants suggested that the Government needed to better understand who was taking advantage of the program and whether there were more effective alternatives, such as finding a way to foster greater usage of the CEWS among employers. For a number of participants the worry was that removing access to these supports, and applying a set of rules that did not take into consideration specific circumstances, could result in increased financial and mental stress, more homelessness and greater pressure on existing social assistance programs.

When asked how long these programs should stay in place, responses were quite varied as participants were uncertain how long it may take for the economy to rebound and for unemployment rates to go back to pre-COVID-19 levels. Some offered generic responses, such as “for as long as it’s required.” Others felt that the programs should remain until a vaccine is available.

Participants were somewhat challenged in terms of what the Government of Canada could do, in addition to the CEWS, to encourage businesses to hire people back. Some participants indicated that the issues in getting people to return to work may have more to do with safety concerns as opposed to financial incentives. In this respect, they felt that offering assistance to employers which would help them to protect their customers and workers could be useful. Others commented that governments should be doing more to encourage businesses to hire additional people (not just re-hire their previous employees) who had lost their jobs as a result of COVID-19, by providing additional incentives for those businesses that do.

Economic Recovery and Stimulus

Relatively few participants projected the economy would bounce back at full speed once things have reopened. The more commonly held opinion was that it may take at least a year or more for the economy to rebound and, at a minimum, it is likely to be a lengthy process, possibly linked to the timing of a vaccine becoming widely available.

The majority of participants found it difficult to relate to metaphors pertaining to the seasons as a way of describing economic recovery (i.e., it’s been a long winter, and not it’s springtime for the economy with everything coming back to life). For some, however, in Halifax in particular, this type of description was apropos given that many workers in the region are seasonally employed, but for many others the metaphor seemed inapt as the expectation was that the next few months through the summer are likely to be the most difficult in terms of maintaining social distancing. The notion of a long winter, extending into summer, left participants feeling even more concerned about the state of the economy and the probability of returning to a robust economy.

Participants were questioned about the extent to which the Government of Canada needs to stimulate the economy through traditional job creation programs, such as infrastructure spending, or by putting more money in the hands of Canadians to increase consumer spending. The general consensus in most groups was that some kind of stimulus was required to generate economic recovery.

Some participants favoured direct job creation via nation-wide infrastructure projects. Others talked about putting money in the hands of innovators – entrepreneurs who would create and grow innovative small and medium-sized businesses – or by offering grants to businesses. A few participants spoke about stimulus funding as an opportunity to rethink the kind of economy and quality of life Canadians would like to have, including a stronger focus on food security and green initiatives, rather than investing in carbon-based sectors, such as oil and gas. Still others, commented that Government should lower interest rates in order to stimulate spending and investment. At the same time, a number of participants felt they didn’t know enough about this area of economics to comment on what would form any stimulus should take.

When asked if specific sectors should be targeted, several participants in Halifax mentioned tourism and travel, while others pointed to agriculture and technology.

Planning for Economic Recovery

Participants in Lower Mainland BC and in Saskatoon were asked whether the Government of Canada should consider climate change when planning for economic recovery. There was a recognition that the Government of Canada already had a strong focus on addressing climate change prior to COVID-19 and, as such, it made sense to continue to build on existing initiatives. Participants expressed worries about climate change as “the next big disaster.” They also saw some clear linkages between climate change and the pandemic, noting that that the environment and climate are directly related to public health and well-being.

Others commented that, unfortunately, some of the measures being taken to combat COVID-19 are adversely affecting the climate (e.g., not being able to use reusable bags), while several participants mentioned the more positive unintended consequences of COVID-19 on the environment (e.g., less travel, decreased vehicular traffic, etc.). While supporting initiatives that promote adoption of electric vehicles and more solar production, several participants in Saskatoon acknowledged that a move away from an oil and gas-based economy would have repercussions in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan that would need to be addressed. Others suggested that the Government should focus first on getting through the pandemic and then begin to turn its attention to the kind of economy Canada should be building for the future.

In Saskatoon only, participants were asked whether they thought the federal government could improve Canadians’ quality of life while growing the economy. Most were somewhat confused by this idea, noting that getting people back to work, and providing them with opportunities to earn a living in a rewarding and fulfilling way, would inevitably improve quality of life.

Phrases to Describe the Economy (Mid-Sized Centres Ontario Unemployed, Quebec City, Rural and Small-Town Prairies, Halifax)

Participants were shown some phrases or descriptions of ways in which the Government of Canada could frame its plan for the economy moving forward: Recovery, Restart and New Start. Across the groups, views on which of these was the most apt description varied.

Participants who favoured ‘New Start’ found this phrase particularly relevant given the fact that the economy is expected to be undergoing major restructuring. Their view was that employers, workers and the public will need to look at things quite differently compared to pre-COVID-19. This phrase also connoted the idea of change and the opportunity to consider building and supporting new industry, specifically sustainable businesses, rather than those that Canada has traditionally relied on for economic growth, principally fossil fuels.

Participants who favoured the term ‘Recovery’ over ‘New Start,’ felt that his term suggested a “return,” or getting back to where the Canadian economy was prior to the pandemic fairly quickly, which participants felt good about. Recovery also connoted continuity, and the fact that things are now returning to normal, as they were prior to the lockdown imposed as a result of the pandemic. Among Halifax participants who selected this option, they tended to focus more on the notion of ‘start’ which implies ‘stop,’ and concluded that this idea didn’t really apply as the economy did not come to a complete halt; it had simply slowed down.

Virtually no one across all four groups preferred ‘Restart,’ primarily because it suggested going back rather than moving forward, including back to all the various problems in the Canadian economy previously. The term also suggested that the economy had come to a full stop at the onset of the pandemic.

In essence, selections reflected differing interpretations of the terms, and most participants generally agreed that the most appropriate descriptions were ones that implied rebuilding and resetting the economy, as well as taking the opportunity to invest in areas that would help to safeguard future economic or major global disruption.

Goals for the Economy (Halifax)

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

• Future-proof economy
• Green economy
• Healthy economy
• Modern economy
• Resilient economy
• Strong economy

Participants converged most clearly around the goal of a ‘resilient economy.’ The term had positive connotations, specifically describing an economy that can withstand some degree of turmoil, and one which has built-in ‘protective’ features especially given the unpredictability of the future. It suggested strength and adaptability to the new realities.

Smaller numbers of participants also focused on: ‘modern economy,’ ‘healthy economy’ and ‘green economy.’ These terms generally were viewed positively, although some questioned what ‘modern’ exactly meant or implied.

Nobody selected ‘future-proof’ as the type of economy Canada should be aiming for. Again, many simply weren’t clear on what this phrase meant. Others felt it was unrealistic to assume any economy can anticipate and take steps to prevent adverse events in the future, and felt that being resilient was a much more realistic goal.

Building a Different Type of Economy (Mid-Sized Centres Ontario Unemployed, Quebec City, Rural and Small-Town Prairies, Halifax)

Overall, most participants were of the opinion that the current situation presented an opportunity for the Government of Canada to build a different type of economy, rather than trying to focus on going back to where we were before. Participants offered a number of suggestions centering on a more environmentally responsible economy, as well as one which supports a shift toward digital technologies, encourages more investments in health care and education, and considers implementation of a guaranteed basic income. In terms of an environmental focus, participants suggested that it was important to take this opportunity to develop a strong economy based on green energy alternatives and that there should be incentives for those businesses that are willing to make this type of shift.

For many, investing in green, clean technology and innovation would directly lead to a greater quality of life for Canadians. The two goals were seen as integrally intertwined. Some speculated that automation, for example, may offer people the chance for greater flexibility in terms of working hours.

At the same time, some felt that the first priority was to get people back to work. And, others expressed concerns that a major pivot in terms of Canada’s economic focus would require retraining significant numbers of workers. It was noted that there would, of necessity, be a lag time between reskilling and training workers and being able to invest in or promote new sectors or industries. The latter would not occur without the former.

Other Challenges Resulting from COVID-19 (Mid-Sized Centres Ontario Unemployed, Quebec City, Rural and Small-Town Prairies, Halifax)

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

• Seniors and long-term care – issues related to cases of COVID-19 and the ability of these homes to respond adequately to the pandemic
• Schools and universities - the shift to online course delivery
• Socialization – changes in the way that people interact with each other
• Health care – prioritizing surgical procedures, rethinking the role of the Emergency Room and how patients use it
• Stress and anxiety – undertaking daily tasks (i.e., grocery shopping) given social distancing measures
• Basic subsistence issues – simply having to feed one’s family
• Consumerism – people living from pay cheque to pay cheque and spending beyond their means

While child care and mental health were not raised on an unprompted basis, most participants agreed these were obvious challenges that would need to be addressed. A number of participants were particularly focused on mental health given that many people have been isolated and/or living without much support for an extended period. As such, the expectation was that there may be an uptick in those with mental health issues coming out of the pandemic.

Message Testing (GTA Students, GMA Students, Major Centres Ontario Stressed, Interior BC Parents, Major Centres Atlantic Unemployed, Small Town Quebec)

To help provide input into federal government communications, a series of statements (outlined below) were tested as examples of the kind of information that the Government of Canada might provide to the public, related to COVID-19.

Approach to Message Testing

Throughout the month of May, there were some differences in the approach and messages that were tested in each of the groups.

In both student groups (in the GTA and GMA) and in the group with those living in major centers across Ontario, the messages were grouped thematically and presented one at a time. The statements generally fell into three thematic areas, as follows:

• Advice around mild symptoms
• Advice on practices to take
• Messages on reopening

A discussion followed the sharing of the statements on screen in which participants were asked to provide their overall impressions, discuss which statements (or parts of statements) they liked or disliked, and identify those they found confusing. Following this discussion, participants were asked to respond to two polls, identifying the one statement in each thematic area that they felt offered the most important information (in the first poll) and which statement they disliked most (in the second poll). For each poll, participants were able to select a ‘none of the above’ option if they didn’t think any of the statements fit the question.

In the Interior BC, Atlantic and small town Quebec groups, the series of statements were revised and regrouped into two themes - motivational and guidance messaging.

For each theme, two polls were executed in order to gather participant’s opinions. The first poll in the motivational messaging section asked participants to select 2-3 statements they found to be the most compelling in terms of motivating them to follow the advice. Meanwhile, the first poll in the guidance messaging section asked participants to select 2-3 statements that they believed to be the most important to them. The second poll across both themes asked participants to select which, if any statements, they disliked.

Findings based on the polls and discussions are detailed below.

Findings by Theme (GMA Students, GTA Students, Major Centres Ontario Stressed)

Advice around mild symptoms

The following three messages, pertaining to advice for those who are either asymptomatic or exhibiting mild symptoms, were shown to participants.

• Most people infected with COVID-19 experience mild symptoms, but they can still pass the disease on to others. We need to protect seniors and the most-vulnerable members of the community by staying home as much as possible, and avoiding crowds and places where adequate physical distancing is not possible.
• Remember that each of us can still infect others, even if we have no symptoms. If you think you might have COVID-19, get tested. This will help us identify any outbreaks in the community and put in place measures to prevent further spread.
• If you are experiencing even mild symptoms, stay home from work and other community settings until you are better. Employers and employees alike need to support each other on this front so that we can keep the spread of COVID-19 under control.

Participants had mixed reactions to these statements. On the positive side, many believed the statements to be direct and to the point. However, many felt that the information provided wasn’t new. They felt most of the messages were ones they had heard before. That said, when asked to indicate any statements they disliked, about half of participants did not select any.

The first statement was preferred by most, as participants believed it to be the most concrete, easiest to understand and provided what they believed to be the most important information.

• “Most people infected with COVID-19 experience mild symptoms, but they can still pass the disease on to others. We need to protect seniors and the most-vulnerable members of the community by staying home as much as possible, and avoiding crowds and places where adequate physical distancing is not possible.”

This message was the top selection in terms of providing important information to the public. To participants, the key pieces of information communicated in this message were:

• That even if a person was asymptomatic they could still transmit the virus to others
• It explicitly stated the measures to take, such as staying home, avoiding crowds, practicing physical distancing (which the other messages did not)
• It stressed the importance of continuing to keep transmission under control in Canada

Outside of the GMA group, reactions were generally neutral or negative for the other two messages.

• “Remember that each of us can still infect others, even if we have no symptoms. If you think you might have COVID-19, get tested. This will help us identify any outbreaks in the community and put in place measures to prevent further spread.”

This message was viewed as the most informative for students from the Greater Montreal area group, primarily because they found it useful to have information about transmission of the virus even if one is asymptomatic, and it encouraged people to get tested.

Conversely, a number of Anglophones disliked this message. Some were of the opinion that this message suggested that the consequences of contracting the virus were not that severe. It also mentioned getting tested, but did not provide any additional information about where one could go to get tested or the procedures for testing.

Advice on practices to take

The following five messages about practices to prevent contracting COVID-19 and/or to limit the spread of the virus were shared with participants.

• Continue to practice the critical measures to limit the spread of COVID-19: physical distancing, frequent handwashing, and staying home if you’re sick.
• We know many Canadians want to mark ceremonies, funerals and other important rites and rituals. It is important to follow your local guidelines on number of participants and infection prevention measures for these events.
• Wear a mask to prevent the spread of COVID-19 when going places where it is difficult to practice physical distancing, such as grocery stores and public transit.
• This is a difficult time for everyone. If you need mental health support, resources are available at Canada.ca
• A healthy lifestyle makes you less at risk for serious outcomes if you catch COVID-19. Stay active and eat healthy to protect yourself from this and other diseases.

There was a clear preference for the first statement, while many held negative views about the last statement.

Participants felt the first statement provided the most important information, as it explained the specific, basic measures that should be taken by all Canadians. Participants liked that this message focused on what they believed truly mattered and would make a difference in stopping the spread of the virus. Outside of providing important information, many liked that this statement was clean, concise and to the point.

• “Continue to practice the critical measures to limit the spread of COVID-19: physical distancing, frequent handwashing, and staying home if you’re sick.”

Across all locations, the last statement was disliked by most participants.

• “A healthy lifestyle makes you less at risk for serious outcomes if you catch COVID-19. Stay active and eat healthy to protect yourself from this and other diseases.”

It was not that participants disagreed with the importance of leading a healthy lifestyle, or felt that it should not be practiced while stay at home measures were in place. However, they interpreted the message as saying that living a healthy lifestyle would prevent someone from contracting COVID-19, which they noted was incorrect.

Messages on reopening

Lastly, the three messages below all having to do with reopening were shown to participants.

• Thank you for following the advice of experts to stay at home during this difficult time. Because of your actions, we are now able to start gradually opening things up in our communities. Please follow the most recent rules around social distancing closely so we can return to normal soon.
• COVID-19 remains a serious health threat. While some restrictions are being loosened, it is important to recognize that things can get worse again if we don’t all follow the current restrictions in place. Stay up to date with the latest rules and restrictions for your area by visiting Canada.ca/coronavirus regularly.
• While some things are starting to open up, we must remember that everyone is at risk of contracting COVID-19 and everyone is at risk of passing it to loved ones. So, follow guidelines for your area closely and help protect each other.

The second of the three messages was the clear preference across all three groups.

• “COVID-19 remains a serious health threat. While some restrictions are being loosened, it is important to recognize that things can get worse again if we don’t all follow the current restrictions in place. Stay up to date with the latest rules and restrictions for your area by visiting Canada.ca/coronavirus regularly.”

It emphasized key information for participants as reopening occurred regionally and across the country. They liked the seriousness of the tone and preferred the messaging around continuing to follow guidelines. With the exception of a few people, almost all participants identified this statement as providing important information for the public to hear. This included:

• that the situation was not over yet (“remains a serious health threat”)
• Noting that there are consequences if the public does not continue to practice the directives provided by the federal government.

Providing information in a style that was direct and to the point. The first and last statements received mixed reviews, just as many liked or were neutral about the statements as disliked them. They were disliked by approximately half of participants across the three groups in which they were shown.

With respect to the first statement, some participants disliked the use of the term “thank you” for a variety of reasons. Some thought it gave the impression that the pandemic was over, while others thought the government should not be thanking everyone because there are some who did not follow the advice of public health experts. By contrast, some liked the term “thank you” as they felt it was a respectful gesture recognizing the hard work and sacrifices made by the public to control the spread of the virus. However, some negativity was expressed about the suggestion that things would “return to normal soon.” A number of participants simply did not believe this to be true. In fact, participants said that they believed there will be major changes to the way Canadians live going forward.

• “Thank you for following the advice of experts to stay at home during this difficult time. Because of your actions, we are now able to start gradually opening things up in our communities. Please follow the most recent rules around social distancing closely so we can return to normal soon.”

The last statement was primarily disliked by those in the group comprising residents of major centers in Ontario, although they had a difficult time articulating why.

• “While some things are starting to open up, we must remember that everyone is at risk of contracting COVID-19 and everyone is at risk of passing it to loved ones. So, follow guidelines for your area closely and help protect each other.”

Findings on Motivational Messaging (Interior BC Parents, Major Centres Atlantic Unemployed, Small Town Quebec)

Over the course of May, adjustments were made to some of the messages which were tested. The groupings or themes were restructured and, while some of the messaging shown to previous groups remained the same, new or slightly edited versions of other messages were included in the discussion. The following are the series of statements which were shown to participants as examples of motivational messages encouraging Canadians to follow public health advice.

• COVID-19 remains a serious health threat. While some restrictions are being loosened, it is important to recognize that things can get worse again if we don’t all follow the current guidelines in place. Frequently wash your hands, avoid crowded places, and practice physical distancing.
• Don't be responsible for the spread of COVID. Frequently wash your hands, avoid crowded places, and practice physical distancing.
• Most people infected with COVID-19 experience mild symptoms, but they can still pass the disease on to others. Even if you do not feel sick, it is important to frequently wash your hands, avoid crowded places, and practice physical distancing.
• We need to protect seniors and the most-vulnerable members of the community. Do your part by frequently washing your hands, avoiding crowded places, and practicing physical distancing.

Across the three groups, the following statements were rated as the most compelling in terms of following public health advice. The messages listed below are listed in the order of frequency with which each was selected as the most compelling by participants.

• “COVID-19 remains a serious health threat. While some restrictions are being loosened, it is important to recognize that things can get worse again if we don’t all follow the current guidelines in place. Frequently wash your hands, avoid crowded places, and practice physical distancing.”

This above message was rated as the most encouraging in the English groups in Interior BC and in major centres in Atlantic Canada. Participants liked the directive tone of the message and the fact that it alluded to the potential of the pandemic getting worse if such practices weren’t followed. The message clearly conveyed to participants that even though some things were reopening, that Canada was still in the midst of a pandemic. A few participants liked that the message was more generally targeted to all Canadians, rather than certain subgroups, as was the case for some of the other statements.

• “Don't be responsible for the spread of COVID. Frequently wash your hands, avoid crowded places, and practice physical distancing.”

This message was viewed as most compelling in the group held among residents of small towns in Quebec, where all participants selected this option. The message was seen as compelling because it suggested that each Canadian had a personal responsibility to protect others around them. Participants took away that it’s not necessarily about their own health, but the effect that one’s behaviour can have on others, which seemed to resonate as a compelling reason to follow public health advice.

• “We need to protect seniors and the most-vulnerable members of the community. Do your part by frequently washing your hands, avoiding crowded places, and practicing physical distancing.”

Fewer, but still a significant number of participants, believed the third message above was strong because of its focus on seniors and vulnerable populations. Many suggested that it was important to protect these groups, whom they believed to be more at risk of contracting the disease. Others simply found it more relatable and motivating for them, as they made a more direct and relevant connection to family or friends who were seniors or immunocompromised.

Overall, most participants did not dislike any of the messages presented. Those in the Atlantic Canada and small town Quebec groups, in particular, were more positive about all of the statements.

Only 4 respondents across the three groups indicated that they disliked each of the following statements, for the various reasons cited below.

• “Don't be responsible for the spread of COVID. Frequently wash your hands, avoid crowded places, and practice physical distancing.”

Opposition to this statement was based on the tone of the first sentence. For some, it came across as accusatory or too aggressive, which they believed would not be well received.

• “Most people infected with COVID-19 experience mild symptoms, but they can still pass the disease on to others. Even if you do not feel sick, it is important to frequently wash your hands, avoid crowded places, and practice physical distancing.”

Those who disliked this statement suggested that it downplayed the severity of the virus. Saying that many people would only suffer mild symptoms if they contracted COVID-19 made contracting COVID-19 sound somewhat trivial, which would tend to dilute its motivational impact.

Unanimously, participants stated that they did not find any of the messages presented in this series to be confusing.

Findings on Guidance Messaging (Interior BC Parents, Major Centres Atlantic Unemployed, Small Town Quebec)

The following five statements were shown to participants and positioned as messages that the Government of Canada could provide as guidance related to COVID-19.

• Continue to practice the critical measures to limit the spread of COVID-19: physical distancing, frequent hand-washing, and staying home if you’re sick.
• If you suspect you have illness due to COVID, get tested. This will help us identify any outbreaks in the community and put in place measures to prevent further spread.
• Stay up to date with the latest rules and restrictions for your area by visiting Canada.ca/coronavirus regularly.
• This is a difficult time for everyone. If you need mental health support, resources are available at Canada.ca/coronavirus.
• Wear a mask to prevent the spread of COVID-19 when going places where it is difficult to practice physical distancing, such as grocery stores and public transit.

When participants were asked to choose which of the five statements were most important, the following messages were selected most frequently.

• “Continue to practice the critical measures to limit the spread of COVID-19: physical distancing, frequent hand-washing, and staying home if you’re sick.”

By a wide margin, this message was deemed the most important. Many appreciated that it included important information on basic practices, such as physical distancing and hand-washing. They believed that these practices had already been effective and were very important to continue in order to stop the spread of the virus. In small town Quebec, participants also commented that these are measures that Canadians should continue to practice going forward to prevent the transmission of other illnesses, such as influenza.

• “If you suspect you have illness due to COVID, get tested. This will help us identify any outbreaks in the community and put in place measures to prevent further spread.”

A significant proportion of participants also thought the information in this message was important. Commentary focused on the importance of Canadians getting tested as one of the best defences to stop the spread of the virus. They suggested that it was better to get tested in a timely manner than to risk interacting with others and possibly spreading the virus. In small town Quebec, participants mentioned that it was critical for every person to ensure that they were not a vector. Others mentioned testing was important to assist in identifying community outbreaks in order to better target pandemic efforts.

• “This is a difficult time for everyone. If you need mental health support, resources are available at Canada.ca/coronavirus”

While fewer participants deemed the above statement to be the most important, across all groups in which this message was tested there was a general sense that mental health supports were critical for Canadians, especially during this pandemic. Participants recalled a number of friends, family, or acquaintances who had been struggling with various mental health issues, such as anxiety or depression. They also mentioned that many are having challenges coping with the new reality during the pandemic, which may exacerbate these feelings. Many viewed mental health as a significant issue in Canada and a topic that required more attention.

Few participants expressed a strong negative reaction to any of the guidance messages. Among those who did, the following statements were among the least preferred.

• “Stay up to date with the latest rules and restrictions for your area by visiting Canada.ca/coronavirus regularly.”

Some negativity was associated with the fact that information on the pandemic is constantly changing which would limit the currency of the information found on the website. Others questioned whether there was sufficient impetus in the statement to encourage Canadians to visit the website.

• “Wear a mask to prevent the spread of COVID-19 when going places where it is difficult to practice physical distancing, such as grocery stores and public transit.”

The focus of opposition with the above message was around the guidance provided to date on the use of masks. Many suggested that, at the time, there was a lot of confusion and misinformation around the use and effectiveness of masks. Some mentioned difficulties personally wearing a mask, finding a proper mask that they believed would be effective, costs of purchasing masks and a general sense that others did not know how to properly wear their mask.

Across all three groups where they were tested, participants indicated that none of the guidance messages were particularly unclear or confusing.

In the group held with those residing in major centers in Ontario, participants were presented with a series of examples of short messages that the Government of Canada could provide to Canadians on guidance related to COVID-19, as follows:

• Be COVID Responsible. Stay home if sick, wash your hands and keep a safe distance.
• Be safe out there. Wash your hands and keep a distance.
• Do your part. Wash hands, keep apart and stay home if sick.
• Easy as 1-2-3: stay home if sick, keep your hands clean and keep your distance.
• It takes all of us: Clean your hands, keep a safe distance and stay home if sick.
• Sick? Stay home. Out? Keep your distance. Keep your hands clean.
• Stay healthy: wash your hands and keep a distance.
• Take care Canada. Stay home if sick, wash your hands and keep your distance.

Participants read the statements individually before being asked to complete three polls evaluating which statements were: easy to understand, caught their attention, were disliked and/or confusing. The outcome of this exercise is discussed below.

Easy to Understand

The following two statements below were rated the easiest to understand by participants in this group for various reasons.

“Do your part. Wash hands, keep apart and stay home if sick.”

This message was perceived as clear because it was considered very simple, direct and to the point.

“It takes all of us: Clean your hands, keep a safe distance and stay home if sick.”

Participants liked the reference to “it takes all of us” in the first part of the message, which they felt clearly conveyed the message of everyone doing their part and focussed on the community coming together.

Two other messages “Be COVID Responsible. Stay home if sick, wash your hands and keep a safe distance” and “Easy as 1-2-3: stay home if sick, keep your hands clean and keep your distance.” were also viewed as easy to understand by a few participants in this group.

Attention Catching

The two statements most likely to catch participants’ attention were as follows.

“Be COVID Responsible. Stay home if sick, wash your hands and keep a safe distance.”

This message stood out to participants primarily because it included the term “COVID”, whereas the other statements did not.

“Sick? Stay home. Out? Keep your distance. Keep your hands clean.”

The fact that this message was framed in a question and answer format drew participants’ attention.

Dislike or Confusing

“Stay healthy: wash your hands and keep a distance.”

The few participants who disliked this statement were critical because the message “Stay healthy” did not provide any context or link to the pandemic. It was generally viewed as being too generic.

“Take care Canada. Stay home if sick, wash your hands and keep your distance.”

Only one participant did not particularly favour this statement, because it appeared to overstate the extent of the pandemic.

In three locations, a series of eight taglines were shown to participants in order to gauge their preferences. Participants were told these statements were examples of simple messages that the Government of Canada could include at the end of its advertisements about COVID-19.

The taglines differed slightly between the English and French groups. The moderator showed the following taglines on screen in the English groups in Interior BC and major centres in Atlantic Canada.

• A nation in action
• All of us, all the way
• Be COVID responsible
• Be safe out there
• Let's all do our part
• Protect yourself and others
• Together for tomorrow
• Together, we're stronger

The moderator showed the following taglines on screen in the French group with participants from small towns in Quebec. While the first five taglines were more direct translations from the English, the last three differed between the English and the French.

• Une nation en action (A nation in action)
• Ensemble, jusqu’au bout (All of us, all the way)
• Faisons tous notre part (Let’s all do our part)
• Ensemble vers l’avenir (Together for tomorrow)
• Ensemble, on est plus forts (Together, we’re stronger)
• Plus forts ensemble (Stronger together)
• Restons forts (Let’s keep going strong)
• L’entraide nous fait advancer (Caring will carry us)

Likes

The following three taglines were most preferred.

“Let’s all do our part”/ “Faisons tous notre part”

This was the clear preference across all three groups. Participants tended to like this tagline for a few reasons. Overall, they liked that it implied a sense of responsibility or accountability towards a greater good. It suggested that each Canadian had his/her own part to play and that one individual’s actions could result in benefitting the greater public. The tagline was widely viewed as “inclusive” in the Atlantic group and in small towns in Quebec.

“Protect yourself and others”

This tagline performed well in the two English groups in which it was tested. Participants generally liked it for many of the same reasons as the previous statement, notably the emphasis on personal accountability and inclusivity. Some liked the use of the word “yourself” because they believed it spoke to people on an individual level, telling them it was important to protect themselves as well, not just the others around them.

“Restons forts (Let’s keep going strong)”

In small town Quebec, “Restons forts” was preferred by most participants. In particular, they liked that the message suggested Canadians were already strong and that it provided positive reinforcement.

Dislikes

The least preferred taglines across groups were “All of us, all the way” and “Be safe out there”. However, participants also disliked other taglines for various reasons.

“All of us, all the way”/ “Ensemble, jusqu’au bout”

This tagline did not resonate with participants in any group, primarily because it was considered trite.

“Be safe out there”

Overall, the tone of the tagline seemed to come across as somewhat patronizing, which some disliked. Others suggested that it did not sound serious enough, given the gravity of the situation.

In addition to those mentions above, there was discussion around the taglines that included the word “together”. Some English participants suggested there may be confusion around using the term “together” as they had been directed to stay apart.

Key Points

When asked what the key message or point of these taglines was, the general consensus from participants was that: a) every Canadian had a responsibility to do their own part and, b) that as Canadians we’re all in this together.

Clarity and Comprehension

Across all groups, the taglines were generally viewed as clear and easy to understand. The one exception was the tagline “Be COVID responsible”, which some participants in Atlantic Canada found confusing. Some commented that they did not understand what it meant to be “COVID responsible”, and, in that sense, the tagline was somewhat vague or ambiguous.

Overall Awareness

As a prelude to the ad testing, participants were asked if they had seen or heard any recent Government of Canada advertising related to COVID-19. Many said they had seen at least some advertising from the federal government about the pandemic, though most could not recall any specifics top-of-mind.

Among the few who could definitively recall Government of Canada advertising in Quebec City and Halifax, they cited Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer and Chris Hadfield as the main spokespeople in the ads they had seen. Most said that they had seen federal government ads across multiple channels, including television and on the radio.

Ad Testing

Across these five groups, two advertising concepts were tested in video format. The concepts featured a young person telling their story of their experience having contracted COVID-19. In the English groups the spokesperson was a young male (Matt) while in the French group in Quebec City, this role was undertaken by a young female (Ariane), but overall the basic concept and messaging were the same in both languages.

Concept A: Matt (Calgary, Mid-sized Centres Ontario Unemployed, Rural/Small Town Prairies, Halifax)

There were two video versions of this ad tested over four groups towards the end of May. The first version of the ad was only tested in Calgary. The second version was tested in mid-sized centres in Ontario with those unemployed due to COVID-19, rural and small town Prairies and in Halifax. The main difference between the two versions related to the production, which was more developed in the second version to include adjustments to colouring, sound and various other aspects.

The final version of the video was as follows:

Concept B: Ariane (Quebec City)

This ad concept was tested in the Quebec City group. The moderator played the following video on screen for participants:

Overall reactions: With a few exceptions, participants held generally positive impressions overall. Most liked that the ad featured a young person, as they believed that people in this age group viewed themselves as less likely to be impacted by the virus. Some believed the ad did a good job of challenging the stereotype that only older adults should be concerned about contracting COVID-19.

However, a few participants felt that the ad did not resonate with them and they did not connect with it on an emotional level, as they believed it was intended for a demographic other than their own.

Main message: Across all groups, participants were fairly consistent in describing the main message to be that all Canadians are at risk of contracting COVID-19, including young people. They also explained that the messaging alluded to the fact that young people are not only vulnerable to contracting the virus, but can also suffer greatly from the illness.

Likes/strengths: As indicated above, participants generally liked that the ad was geared towards a younger demographic, as they believed this to be a group less likely to be following stay-at-home and social distancing directives. Some participants in rural and small town Prairies believed that this was a message that needed to be amplified, and it was timely as some were not taking the situation seriously, especially as some provinces began to open up.

Participants liked that the advertisement used a “real person” and an actual situation, which made it more relatable for some. Some also liked that the ad approached the issue in quite a different way from other advertising they have seen on the topic.

Dislikes/weaknesses: Some participants felt that the advertising gave the impression that contracting COVID-19 was tolerable and not as severe as participants would have expected. In general, participants believed the ad focussed more so on the recovered individual and less on demonstrating the hardship and challenges of dealing with overcoming the virus. These participants felt the ad would be strengthened if the individual conveyed more emotion when relaying the experience, rather than the composed narrative approach employed.

Others suggested using a woman (in the English groups) or a person of colour for more diversity.

Some also felt the video could have a stronger production value, but did not offer suggestions as to improvements.

Clarity and comprehension: The ads were widely seen as clear and easy to understand and there were no issues with language or comprehension in any of the groups.

Target audience: Young people (considered those between 16 and 25 years old) were identified as the target audience for this ad, especially those perceiving themselves to be invincible or immune to the effects of COVID-19. That said, a few commented that it was also relevant to other demographics.

Featuring someone who contracted COVID-19: Most agreed that it was a good approach to feature someone who contracted COVID-19, highlight the importance of follow public health advice and to target young people. For participants in rural and small town Prairies, featuring someone with first-hand experience made the ad somewhat more relatable, and having it be a younger person was even more effective. Participants in the Quebec group, emphasized the importance of the young person appearing as healthy in order for the ad to be effective.

Other spokespeople: In terms of other Canadians who would be good spokespersons for federal government ads on the topic, a wide variety of people were mentioned. Canadian celebrities, such as music artists (i.e. Shawn Mendes, Drake, Justin Bieber), athletes (like Sidney Crosby, Wayne Gretzky, NBA players) and/or other influencers such as comedians were suggested. Some participants mentioned that social media influencers (such as TikTok-ers) might also be effective in reaching a younger demographic.

Outside of those in the public eye, a number of participant mentioned wanting to hear from frontline workers, such as doctors or pharmacists, construction workers or others working essential services. Others mentioned that they would relate more to an average person (versus using celebrities) such as a best friend, neighbour, or an elderly person that contracted the virus.

Suggestions:

A number of participants suggested the young person could have been in a situation where they spread the virus along to a loved one (i.e. sibling, mother, or grandparent), which would amplify the gravity, make the ad more relatable to a wider audience and, ultimately, enhance its impact.

Other suggestions included creating a series which could feature a number of different people who had contracted the disease, and providing additional information around preventative measures to reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19.

Website Testing (Lower Mainland BC, Rural Quebec Parents, Saskatoon)

In three of the twelve groups conducted in May, participants were instructed, in advance of the groups, to review the Canada.ca/coronavirus website and to take a few notes of what, in particular, they had viewed on the site, their thoughts about the site in terms of layout and navigability, as well as any information they had attempted to find or found particularly interesting/useful.

Prior Experience on the Site

In two of the three groups – Lower Mainland BC and Rural Quebec Parents – more than half the group said they had visited the site prior to being asked to review it for the focus group discussion. By contrast, no one in Saskatoon had previously visited the site.

For those with prior experience on the site, some noted that their most recent visit was within the last week, while others mentioned their last visit had been a month or more ago. Still others could not recall exactly when they had last been to the website. Primary reasons for visiting the site included:

• Obtaining information on and assessing eligibility for benefits
• Assessing availability of financial aid for those who are self-employed
• Applying for benefits (i.e., CERB, EI, CEWS)
• Monitoring cases of COVID-19
• Learning about various aspects of the virus (i.e., how it spreads)
• Finding information on jobs classified as essential and/or essential services
• Getting updates on border closures and travel restrictions
• Getting information for travelers, in general
• Obtaining information on social distancing, including whom to call if people are not complying
• Impact of the pandemic on various industries

Many of those who had not previously visited the site said they were disinclined to do so because they were already feeling overwhelmed with information from various media outlets about the virus and its impact. They had not had a specific reason or purpose to visit the site. In some cases, as in Lower Mainland BC, participants felt that the provincial government online self-assessment tool was all they needed. Others were comfortable simply searching for information on Google or following the daily press conferences. In Saskatoon, the issue for some was a lack of awareness of the site, and reliance on other more local sources of information.

Visiting the Site

Participants were asked, in response to our request to have them visit the site in advance of the focus group, whether they had gone to the site with a specific question or topic in mind, or whether they had simply perused the site without any particular goal or objective. Most had done the latter, moving from topic to topic as it piqued their curiosity. As some noted, they were drawn by particular pieces of information included on the website, such as the Canadian Armed Forces response to the pandemic as well as the number of military personnel who had tested positive for the virus and the locations where they were likely exposed. Others were interested in the self-assessment tool, information on vaccines, mental health and supports for people experiencing mental health issues during COVID-19. They were impressed that the site included ideas and tips to help people struggling with mental health issues.

For those who had looked for specific information, their interests mirrored some of the topics noted in the above section, including:

• Travel information (i.e., rules regarding air travel, restrictions, exceptions (as in the case of an ill or dying parent/family member, details on flight departures/arrivals prior to May)
• Details on how to safely socially distance
• Antibody testing
• Information on the CERB
• Programs for students
• General tax information (i.e., deadlines for submitting tax returns)
• Information about Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for businesses
• Other general safety and health information

Many of these participants found most or at least part of what they were looking for, although in a couple of instances it did not fully answer their question, such as international travel rules related to attending a funeral, or information on antibody testing.

Intention to Revisit the Site

Those who stated they would visit the website again indicated that they would do so to obtain or verify specific information, to get updates on the ongoing situation with respect to COVID-19, available financial aid and travel advisories. Several others commented that they would go back if they happened to be taken to the site via a Google link. These same participants commented positively on the comprehensive nature of the information found on the site and the quality of the content.

When asked what else they felt should be included on the site, few made any concrete recommendations, other than the following:

• Dealing with a loved one who contracts or dies as a result of COVID-19
• Practical suggestions on what to do if you lose a loved one due to COVID-19
• Additional mental health resources, including links to available provincial and municipal resources
• Additional resources related to home-schooling
• Links to food banks

General Comments on the Site (Rural Quebec Parents, Saskatoon)

Participants found the site:

• Clear
• Very thorough
• Well organized by topic
• Nicely laid out
• Highly informative and interesting in terms of content
• Contains extensive detail on a range of topics

Participants gave positive feedback on the home page in particular, noting the usefulness of the breakdown by topic area: financial, your health, your family, your business, etc. Participants in rural Quebec in particular were impressed at how much information was included on the site, and especially how easy it was to see what kind of financial aid the Government of Canada was offering.

However, some found the site:

• Lacked local information (i.e., a map which would allow visitors to drill deeper on information by province)
• Used sophisticated language
• Was too dense due to the volume of text, number of hyperlinks, and minimal use of graphics or visuals

On the last point above, those who did not have a purpose for visiting the site and were simply browsing (i.e. would not have accessed the site had they not been asked to do so), found it took too much time to read the information on the site, especially moving from one link to another, and from one page of links to a subsequent page of links.

Finally on the issue of language used, several participants suggested that the language could be simplified and made more concise (examples provided of unclear language included ‘COVID-19 Technical Brief,’ and ‘Interim national case definition’).

Impact of COVID-19 on Students (GTA Students, GMA Students)

Personal Inconveniences

In terms of inconveniences, the impact tended to reflect the students’ stage in university or college. Recent graduates and current students looking for summer employment in their field of study reported not being able to find work, which had impacts both in financial but also in developmental terms.

Many participants reported issues with the switch to online learning, including having no access to physical facilities, such as libraries and laboratories, or to in-person workshops. Part of the issue was the loss of collegiality and often the challenge of trying to study in a distracting home environment. However, some appreciated the flexibility inherent in an online learning environment.

The discussion then drilled down into interrupted summer employment plans. The majority had arranged for summer employment which was subsequently canceled or postponed, and again, as mentioned above, the issues were both financial and developmental. Some younger students were unable to complete high school co-op or apprenticeship requirements, while some older students risked not be able to complete required internships.

The student participants felt very different levels of financial stress. No one in the GTA group reported significant financial stress, while the majority in the GMA group did. Those under stress reported difficulties in paying bills and tuition, as well as liabilities for leases and professional school fees. A couple of participants had secured solid employment as frontline workers, and thus had felt less financial pressure.

Perceptions of the Virus in Canada

When participants were asked if they believed the virus to be under control in Canada there was a clear divergence in views between the two groups. The GTA students believed that Canada was doing a good job in battling COVID-19 (they positioned Canada as being in the top five in the world), especially when excluding Ontario cases. All but one of the GMA students held the opposite view – they did not think that the virus was under control. Their view was influenced by several issues: the deaths in long-term care facilities, and a sense that many people were not observing proper social distancing.

Internationally, however, neither group thought that the virus was under control, with participants pointing to the large number of cases in the US in particular, as well as some other regions, such as some developing countries.

Lessening Restrictions

Asked if Canada was ready to start lessening restrictions, there was a definite hesitation, and a view that Canada was reaching the peak number of cases at the time and that everyone may have to adjust to a new normal. Most felt that Canada needed to hold off, though opinion varied as to whether the timeline for reopening should occur in the relatively near future or not. The students in the GTA group suggested that Canada should wait until at least September and be prepared to use strict protocols in crowded workplaces and schools. In the GMA group, it was suggested to wait at least until the end of September but probably for six months. Overall though, there was a consensus that they did not know what to do about lessening restrictions and would follow authority and expert opinion.

When asked about a scenario where medical experts said lessening social distancing measures would likely lead to only a small increase in the number of cases, students in both groups still expressed some disquiet over this prospect and felt that public health should be paramount. When then asked whether or not Canada should wait to open up until a vaccine is available, students felt this would be too damaging to the economy, but had some difficulty taking a position one way or another.

There were no real issues about different provinces reopening their economies at different speeds, though some felt that federal guidelines for reopening would be useful.

When asked for their views as to what should be opened up first, the students felt restrictions on international and interprovincial travel should continue. In the GTA group there was a consensus that the first step should be to allow in-home socializing with friends and extended family, while GMA students prioritized reopening retail and restaurants, dental offices and campgrounds.

Expectations on Returning to Campus in September

The majority in both groups expected to be returning to class in the fall. Those who did not expect to do so had already received specific communication about registration and online classes. The participants were also excited to return, and many commented that they were more productive in an in-person environment (and others said that face-to-face facilities were vital to their specific studies). Some noted preferring an online environment due to easier time management and saving on commuting time.

The majority in the GMA group felt that the switch from in-person to online classes devalued their education to some degree. In addition to the real barriers in some programs, several expressed the importance of the social aspects of education in addition to the plainly practical aspects (such as the need for labs, workshops etc.).

Effects on Future Job Prospects

There was a perception that, while senior level or managerial positions were continuing to be posted, entry level positions seem to have vanished.

When informed that the Government of Canada is looking to match students with employers to fill labour shortages across the country, including specifically in essential sectors such as agriculture, farmer and fishery, participants in both groups agreed this was a good idea, even though most did not anticipate participating.

Government of Canada Financial Support for Students

Across the two groups, all participants were aware of the Canada Emergency Student Benefit (CESB), though not necessarily details of the program. Most recalled that its value ranged between $1000 and $5000 in financial support. Students in the GMA group reported hearing about it from Le Devoir and from the Prime Minister’s daily conference. Participants were provided with the following information for clarification:

CESB is for students who are currently in school, starting school in September, or have graduated from school since December 2019, who are ineligible for Canada Emergency Response Benefit. The benefit provides $1,250/month; $2000/month for students with dependents & those with disabilities Eligibility requirements have been expanded so more students can receive loans, including doubling the Canada Grant Students (which is non-repayable).

While the majority understood how much they were eligible for, and felt that it was a sufficient amount, virtually none knew the process of how to obtain the benefit.

When asked whether international students should be eligible for the CESB, all of the GTA participants thought that they should, while views were mixed in the GMA group.

About half of the respondents across the two groups had previously applied for student loans. Participants in the GTA group were aware that eligibility requirements were being expanded and that the maximum amount of Canada Students Grants was doubling, but none of the students in the GMA group were.

Perceptions on Government of Canada Response for Students

Most agreed that the Government of Canada was doing enough to help students. When asked about other ways that the Government of Canada could be supporting students suggested creating an emergency fund, establishing a platform where students could exchange information and discuss issues, and providing mental health services.

Participants in both groups were shown the following list of Government of Canada initiatives that have been undertaken.

• Creating 116,000 new summer job placements
• Creating an emergency student benefit of $1,250/month for students who have lost their job or are unable to find work due to the COVID-19 pandemic
• Doubling student grants
• Increasing the amount of student loans by 50%
• Paying students who volunteer this summer between $1,000 to $5,000

Asked for their reactions to the initiatives, summer job placements and doubling of student grant were well received and identified as initiatives that would make the most difference to them personally, as well as to students more broadly. The interest in summer employment not only focused on an opportunity to earn summer income, but also to gain experience as there was a lot of concern about finding employment after graduation. In Montreal, paying students to volunteer was also a priority, given the financial stress this group felt.

Asked to think about what would make a difference for students more broadly, participants across both groups shifted slightly toward “creating an emergency student benefit of $1250 per month for students who have lost their job” as the top choice.

Airlines (GTA Students, GMA Students)

Providing Financial Aid to Affected Industries

There was a general feeling that the federal government was doing a good job in providing financial aid and that economic prosperity would return. They did not think the oil and gas industry should be given any financial assistance, based on a sense that the downturn facing the industry was due primarily to low oil prices, not to the pandemic. Rather, participants advocated supporting small businesses that were struggling to pay rent.

Views on Aid for the Airline Industry

When GTA students were asked specifically about the airline industry, most thought it should not receive aid. They felt that once restrictions could be lifted that there would be a travel boom, as there would be pent-up demand for both personal and business travel.

They also rejected the idea that airlines could go bankrupt without financial aid, based on a sense that the industry would not be more adversely impacted than any others, and because they felt that airlines could mitigate short-term economic losses by reducing the number of flights to meet the lower demand in the interim period.

No one in the group had had to cancel a flight or receive a credit/refund voucher, but in theory they all favoured refunds, as that is what they felt was a standard practice in other industries. They were more supportive of the idea of credit vouchers if offering full refunds might bankrupt the airlines, but felt additional compensation should be provided, such as upgrades, additional travel reward points and/or an extended timeframe for using the voucher.

Orphan Wells (Saskatoon, Calgary)

Relatively few participants had heard much about orphan wells in Alberta.

For clarity, participants were provided with the following description:

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

Among those few who had heard about orphan wells, there was a fairly clear understanding of the extent and nature of the issue. It was viewed as a by-product of bankruptcies among oil and gas companies which are then unable to restore well sites back to their original state and simply leave them abandoned. Participants in Calgary who were familiar with the issue added that this was a “chronic” problem. In both locations, those aware of orphan wells had also heard something, albeit very little, about any action to address the issue. In Saskatoon, there was a general reference to a government plan to introduce a job creation program linked to cleaning up the sites. In Calgary, participants also noted the same, generally agreeing that remediation of the sites could be an effective way of matching unemployed people with a job that needs to be done and results in a broader public benefit. They also pointed to the Government of Alberta as being responsible for the associated costs of remediation.

Most felt this was an important issue, and one which should be addressed. This view was expressed somewhat more strongly in Alberta relative to Saskatoon. In Calgary, participants who had worked in the oil and gas sector felt the issue was important from an environmental standpoint given the harm that uncapped and/or abandoned sites can cause if they are left to corrode and leak. Most felt that it would be beneficial to the environment, for job creation and the provincial economy to address the issue and, at the same time, cautioned that it would need to be done safely.

The general consensus was that, while governments are ultimately being left to deal with this issue, it is the oil and gas companies that should be responsible. Most participants were unimpressed and dismayed that the cost to rehabilitate these wells was falling to government and, consequently, taxpayers. Recognizing, however, that these companies are no longer financially viable, participants offered a number of suggestions to address the issue upfront or recover costs, including:

• Ensuring that companies have to meet certain environmental and regulatory standards prior to being licensed to drill wells. While regulations were cited as one of the reasons a number of oil and gas companies have exited the province, others indicated that companies must adhere to Canadian regulations or not be permitted to operate in the first place;
• Having companies pay a fee upfront in the way of a tax or security payment levied by government which would be held in the event that this type of circumstance arose; and
• Reselling wells once they are cleaned up, which was viewed as a way of at least partially, if not fully, recovering the costs.

When asked what the federal government could do to reduce or eliminate the environmental risk of orphan wells, many were unsure what to suggest and felt they did not have sufficient knowledge to comment, and some reiterated their previous suggestions about requiring some kind of upfront deposit that could be used to pay for clean-up as necessary.

Other Government of Canada Services (Lower Mainland BC, Rural Quebec Parents)

Participants in the lower mainland BC and rural Quebec groups were asked about federal government services not related to COVID-19 and if they had needed any of them recently. Only a few had needed any, and they had not had any difficulty accessing these services.

Other Federal Government News and Issues (Major Centres Ontario Stressed, Interior BC Parents, Major Centres Atlantic Unemployed, Small Town Quebec, Lower Mainland BC, Rural Quebec Parents, Saskatoon, Rural/Small Town Prairies)

Overall Recall of Non-COVID-19 News

Participants generally struggled to cite any recent federal government issues unrelated to the pandemic. Across all groups, only a few mentioned other national issues such as the prohibition of certain firearms, pipelines affecting Indigenous communities and the (automatic) increase in Member of Parliament salaries. Most said that they had not heard about any other issues.

Firearms

Asked if they had heard specifically about the Government of Canada’s recent announcement on the prohibition of over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms in Canada, most had. Many associated the announcement with the recent shooting incident in Nova Scotia in April 2020.

Some participants had no opinion on the subject, suggesting they didn’t know much of the details or that it would not impact them. Others saw this as a significant issue in Canada and commented that more time should be spent discussing the topic more widely. Among the subset who were against the ban, participants felt it was not the right solution to gun violence and that, instead, the focus should shift to illegal trafficking of firearms, which they believed to be the main concern. A few prairie participants felt that the prohibition should only be done via legislation (not via an order in council).

Focus on COVID-19

Many felt that the Government of Canada focus on COVID-19 was appropriate, given the global impact of the virus, and they appreciated being updated. However, a number felt the media attention was too much, especially among those participating in groups held toward the end of the month.