Timeline of November

Announcements

To help place the focus group discussions within the context of key events that occurred during the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, below is a summary of key announcements in the months of September and October. As well, there is a brief synopsis for the period beginning at the end of September and October and continuing throughout the month of November 2021.

• Key September & October Announcements
  • September 3. Canada Border Services Agency released a reminder that as of September 7, 2021, the Government of Canada will allow fully vaccinated foreign nationals who meet the conditions to enter Canada for non-essential purposes.
  • September 21. Transport Canada announced an extension of the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) which restricts all direct commercial and private passenger flights to Canada from India until September 26, 2021.
  • September 29. The Government of Canada observed the first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation on Parliament Hill to honour the lost Indigenous children, residential school survivors and the lives and communities affected by the Indian residential school system in Canada.
  • October 6. The Government of Canada announced that starting October 30, all employers in the federally regulated air, rail, and marine transportation sectors will be required to establish vaccination policies for their employees. In addition, effective October 30, travellers departing from Canadian airports, and travellers on VIA Rail and Rocky Mountaineer trains, will be required to be fully vaccinated in order to travel.
  • October 16. The Government of Canada approved an extension to a Request for Federal Assistance from the Province of Ontario to manage COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care and retirement homes.
  • October 22. The Competition Bureau received a court order to proceed with an investigation of conduct by Google regarding its online advertising business and determine if it has engaged in practices that harm competition in the online display advertising industry in Canada.
• At the end of September
  • There had been 1,620,137 cases of COVID-19 in Canada with 27,819 deaths.
  • Daily case counts reached 4,364 across Canada, a 1.2% increase from the previous week.
  • There were 44,358 active cases of COVID-19 in Canada.
  • Over 56 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines had been administered across Canada.
• At the end of October
  • There had been 1,714,503 cases of COVID-19 in Canada with 28,965 deaths.
  • Daily case counts declined to 2,231 across Canada, a 5% decrease from the previous week.
  • There were 26,955 active cases of COVID-19 in Canada.
  • Over 58.3 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines had been administered across Canada.
• November 1-9
  • November 2. The Government of Canada announced additional Canadian airports accepting international passenger flights, effective November 30, 2021. This is an expansion on the scope of the existing Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) that directed international passenger flights to 10 Canadian airports.
  • November 2. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced that Canada will contribute $37.5 million to the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), up to $10 million to the Adaptation Fund, and up to $10 million for the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) Global Network.
  • November 3. The Government of Canada announced that it will match the total of $9,675,928 in donations from individual Canadians to the #GiveAVax Fund through UNICEF Canada, enabling UNICEF to cover the per-person cost associated with the transportation of vaccines to destination countries. The total donations and the match will result in $19,351,857, which will cover the costs of vaccinating over 3.8 million people globally.
  • Focus group was held with parents of children under 12 in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) (November 4).
  • November 5. The Government of Canada announced the publication of the latest quarter of wireless pricing data on 2 GB to 6 GB data plans, spanning the July to September 2021 period and shows that most mid-range data plans have decreased 10% to 25% from benchmark prices collected in early 2020.
  • November 8. The Government of Canada announced a $7.7 million joint investment in support of Canada-Quebec Operation High Speed, which will bring Cogeco high-speed Internet services by September 2022 to 690 households in the municipalities of Sainte-Françoise, Sainte-Rita, Saint-Guy, Saint-Jean-de-Dieu, Saint-Clément and Saint-Medard.
  • Focus group was held with seniors aged 55+ in Nova Scotia (November 9).
  • November 9. Health Canada authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine as a booster shot for adults 18 years of age and older, only to be used at least six months after having completed their primary vaccine series. The booster shot is a full dose of the regular vaccine (30 mcg).
  • November 9. The Government of Canada announced an additional $1.35 million through Prairies Economic Development Canada (PrairiesCan) which will allow C-FER Technologies, a not-for-profit subsidiary of Alberta Innovates, to upgrade one of its facilities in Edmonton to test hydrogen fuel infrastructure, equipment, and technologies.
  • November 9. The Government of Canada announced an investment of $10 million over five years in the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) Trust Fund to help developing countries reduce methane emissions.
• November 10-16
  • Focus group was held with the general population in rural Quebec (November 10).
  • November 10. Health Canada authorized the Moderna Spikevax COVID-19 vaccine as a booster shot for adults 18 years of age and older, only to be used at least six months after having completed their primary vaccine series. The booster shot is a half dose of the regular vaccine (50 mcg).
  • November 12. The Prime Minister and his team concluded their participation at the 2021 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and discussed APEC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, economic recovery, and the need for a commitment to sustainability and inclusion.
  • November 13. The Minister of Emergency Preparedness confirmed that the Government of Canada has approved a Request for Federal Assistance from the Province of Ontario to help fight against the COVID-19 pandemic in remote Northern Ontario communities such as remote First Nations fly-in communities. Assistance from the federal government will be provided in the form of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Rangers to support Operation Remote Immunity 3.0 (ORI 3.0) vaccination campaign targeting specific Ontario communities. The CAF support to ORI 3.0 will begin on November 15, 2021 until March 31, 2022.
  • November 15. The Minister of Foreign Affairs announced a third round of sanctions against 11 additional individuals under the Special Economic Measures (Nicaragua) Regulations as a result of the ongoing human rights violations in the country.
  • November 16. Health Canada received a submission from Moderna to authorize the use of the Spikevax COVID-19 vaccine in children between the ages of 6 to 11.
  • Focus group was held with parents of children under 12 in Calgary and Edmonton (November 16).
• November 17-23
  • November 17. The Minister of Emergency Preparedness announced that the Government of Canada approved a Request for Federal Assistance from the Province of British Columbia as a result of the extreme flooding in the province.
  • Focus groups were held with parents of children under 12 in the Greater Montreal Area (GMA) (November 17) and with Indigenous Peoples in Atlantic Canada (November 18).
  • November 18. The Government of Canada announced a $39.8 million investment to support BIOVECTRA’s $79.6 million project to support the company in building a facility in Prince Edward Island and reconfigure its existing facilities in Nova Scotia. This will support Canada’s domestic supply of vaccines and therapeutics. Upon completion, the project will allow for production equivalent to 160 million doses of mRNA vaccine per year.
  • November 19. The Government of Canada announced the following adjustments to Canada’s border and travel measures:
    • Eliminating COVID-19 testing for air and land crossings of less than 72 hours;
    • Expanded list of accepted vaccines for the purpose of travel;
    • Entry requirements: Adjustments for certain travellers entering Canada;
    • New requirements for essential travellers with ArriveCAN; and
    • Mandatory vaccination for federally regulated transportation sectors.
  • November 19. The Minister of Labour announced improvements to the Wage Earner Protection Program (WEPP) to expand eligibility and financially aid Canadians. The standard 6.825 deduction applied to all WEPP payments will be removed, providing an average of an additional $315 to those who have lost their job and are owed wages by their former employer. Additional changes to the program, effective November 20, 2021, include:
    • Enabling earlier access to WEPP payments;
    • Extending WEPP coverage to Canadians employed by foreign companies in Canada; and
    • Updating the payment for trustee and receiver duties.
  • November 19. Beginning November 30, 2021, fully vaccinated individuals with right of entry to Canada who depart and re-enter the country within 72 hours of leaving Canada will not have to present a pre-entry molecular test.
  • November 19. Health Canada authorized the use of Comirnaty, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine) in children between the ages of 5 to 11.
  • November 20. The Government of Canada announced the creation of a joint Federal/Provincial Supply Chain Recovery Working Group in an effort to ensure that the supply chain is re-established, provide Canadians in British Columbia with the goods they need and mitigate against future incidents.
  • November 22. The Minister of Indigenous Services announced that a funding request through the Emergency Management Assistance Program amounting to $4.4 million has been approved. The funding aims to provide additional support to the British Columbia First Nations’ Emergency Services Society in their response to the widespread flooding.
  • Focus groups were held with the general population in major centres Ontario (November 23) and the general population in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (November 23).
  • November 23. The Minister of Seniors launched the Call for Proposals for community projects to support seniors through the New Horizons for Seniors Program (NHSP).
• November 24-31
  • November 24. Health Canada completed an onsite inspection of the Emergent BioSolutions facility in Baltimore, Maryland. In June 2021, Health Canada stated that Canada would refrain from accepting any product or ingredients made at the Emergent BioSolutions facility until the Department completed the inspection. Results from the onsite inspection found the facility to be compliant with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), an internationally recognized quality assurance system to ensure that various drugs and vaccines are handled accordingly.
  • November 24. The Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-2 to provide targeted support to Canadians in need. This Bill would extend the Canada Recovery Hiring Program until May 7, 2022, for eligible employers with current revenue losses above 10% and increase the subsidy rate to 50%. It would also provide targeted support to businesses still significantly affected by the pandemic through the Tourism and Hospitality Recovery Program, the Hardest-Hit Business Recovery Program and the Local Lockdown Program.
  • November 24. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship announced the opening of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, a College that will act as the official regulator of immigration and citizenship consultants across Canada. As such, all paid consultants will need to be licensed by the College.
  • November 24. The Government of Canada announced $325 million in funding for eleven projects with Canadian health partners at the 27^th Canadian Conference on Global Health. The aim of the investment, which will be dispersed over five to seven years, is to allow key partners to support marginalized children, adolescents, women and girls with comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights services as key pillars of essential health services.
  • November 25. The Minister of Health announced a joint investment totalling $20 million to support new research teams across Canada in developing their work on preventing, treating, and caring for Canadians living with diabetes.
  • Focus group was held with seniors aged 55+ in mid-size centres Quebec (November 25).
  • November 26. The Government of Canada introduced amendments to the Criminal Code to provide protections for health care workers and ensure accessible health care. The proposed amendments include intimidation and obstruction access offences and aggravating sentencing factors.
  • November 26. The Minister of Labour and Minister of Justice introduced legislation to amend the Canada Labour Code to provide workers in the federally regulated private sector with ten paid days of sick leave per year.
  • November 26. The Minister of Health announced over $5 million in support of two projects in British Columbia through the Government of Canada’s Safe Voluntary Isolation Sites Program.
  • November 26. The Chief Public Health Officer of Canada issued a statement which ensured that there is no evidence to suggest any adverse pregnancy or neonatal outcomes associated with COVID-19 vaccination, as well as no evidence of fertility issues arising due to any vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines.
  • November 26. The Minister of Transport and the Minister of Health announced new border measures, effective until January 31, 2022, for all travellers who have been in the Southern Africa region, including South Africa, Eswatini, Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Namibia within 14 days before arriving in Canada.
  • November 26. The Minister of Indigenous Services announced the renewal of two Strategic Partnership Initiatives (SPIs) to aid the economic self-sufficiency of Indigenous communities in Quebec, including the True North Treasure Initiative with a $4.5 million contribution and the Forest Full Value Initiatives with another $4.5 million contribution.
  • November 28. The Public Health Agency of Canada issued a statement to confirm two cases of the Omicron variant of concern in Ontario.
  • November 29. The Government of Canada introduced proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to ban conversion therapy practices in Canada
  • Focus groups were held with the general population in the Greater Vancouver Area (GVA) north of Fraser River (November 29) and with the general population in Rural Centres Atlantic Canada (November 30).
  • November 30. The Government of Canada and Manitoba announced a Herd Management Drought Assistance program under the AgriRecovery framework which aims to help livestock producers offset the cost of replacing breeding animals culled as a result of shortages of winter feed. Producers must support a minimum of 10 animals to qualify for assistance.
  • November 30. The Government of Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) announced support for energy efficient affordable housing by way of FCM’s Sustainable Affordable Housing (SAH) initiative to help housing providers retrofit units for optimal energy performance or build new affordable housing to net-zero standards. This initiative invested $1,701,030 in 16 plans to build or retrofit 16,753 units across Canada.
  • November 30. There had been 1,790,142 cases of COVID-19 in Canada with 29,670 deaths. Over 60.3 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines had been administered in Canada.
    • An upward trend in cases was reported, with 2,608 reported during the latest 7-day period in November (19-25), a 9% increase from the week prior.

Government of Canada in the News (All Locations)

At the beginning of each focus group participants discussed what they had seen, read, or heard about the Government of Canada in the past few days. While various issues were mentioned, those pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing response by the federal government were a key focus for participants across all groups.

Although several participants in each group said they had not heard anything recently regarding the Government of Canada, many did recall announcements and initiatives relevant to the federal government’s ongoing management of the pandemic, including:

• The decision announced on November 19^th by Health Canada to approve COVID-19 vaccinations for children ages 5 to 11 – Several participants had heard about this action by the federal government, with many mentioning that they had been following the issue quite closely.
• The approval for the COVID-19 booster shot – Several felt that the third dose of the vaccine would have a significant impact in both reducing the transmission of COVID-19 and the possibility of serious illness among vaccinated Canadians who contracted the virus.
• The U.S. reopening its land border – The U.S. border reopenings on November 8^th also received a great deal of attention from participants. Several viewed this step positively, although some were concerned about the Canadian requirement for all travelers to provide a negative COVID-19 test prior to re-entering Canada. Cost and the inconvenience of acquiring these tests, particularly for short-term trips, was a particular concern. Participants reacted positively when the Government of Canada revised this requirement so that, as of November 30^th, travelers crossing the land border with the United States who returned to Canada within 72 hours would no longer need to provide a negative test upon re-entry.
• The emergence of the Omicron variant – This was top of mind among participants in the groups held in the last week of the month, who mentioned news coverage of the new variant and the federal government’s reaction to it.

Other issues mentioned by participants included the Government of Canada’s activities on the international front, including:

• The 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (also referred to as COP26), held from October 31^st to November 12^th - Some mentioned that they had been following the conference closely and/or had heard about the Government of Canada’s pledge to stop public financing for overseas fossil fuel projects, its calls for a global price on pollution, and its commitment to require that all new Canadian automobiles to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035, among other initiatives.
• The North America Leaders’ Summit, a trilateral meeting between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico which was held on November 18^th.

On the domestic front, participants spoke about discussions regarding raising the flag back to full-mast at federal buildings prior to Remembrance Day, the federal government’s response to the extreme flooding in British Columbia, the installation of a new federal Cabinet, and the delivery of the Speech from the Throne during the last week of November which signaled a new session of Parliament. Participants in Alberta made specific mention of the agreement struck between the federal government and the Government of Alberta to provide $10-a-day childcare for families in Alberta.

United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) (GTA Parents with Children Under 12, Nova Scotia Seniors, Rural Quebec)

Participants in these three groups discussed the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in more detail. Most participants were at least aware of the conference, even if they were not familiar with the details.

Participants generally supported the conference and its overarching goals of reducing global emissions and curbing the effects of climate change. At the same time, some expressed frustration that while many nations had participated in the conference, major CO2 emitters such as China, India, and Brazil did not attend. It was felt that their absence would undermine many of the initiatives agreed to at the conference. A few participants also thought that the negotiations were not sufficiently transparent and seemed to be primarily taking place behind closed doors.

Asked if they could recall any proposals from the Government of Canadian at the conference, participants had some awareness of the following:

• A pledge to have 100% of all new Canadian automobiles be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035;
• A commitment to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions (although participants could not recall the specific target levels or date); and
• The creation of a price on pollution that would cover the majority of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Federal-Provincial Child Care Initiatives (Major Centres Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Mid-Size Centres, Quebec Seniors)

An in-depth discussion was held in these groups on the topic of childcare, specifically focusing on the agreements between the Government of Canada and individual provinces and territories. Many participants were aware of a federal government initiative in this regard, and several were aware that negotiations were underway to reach an agreement with the provinces and territories. The issue was top-of-mind for some, as these groups were held in the two weeks following the announcement of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta on November 15^th. Some were also aware of the target to reduce child care costs to $10 per child, per day on average. Fewer were aware of the timeline to achieve this by 2025-26.

In all three groups, participants were asked if they were aware of the status of child care agreements between the Government of Canada and their respective province. Responses were mixed. Some participants in provinces where new agreements had been reached (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Quebec) were aware of this, while others were uncertain of the status of discussions. In Ontario, some participants were under the impression that the two levels of government were in negotiation, but most were uncertain if any agreement had been reached.

For the purposes of discussion, participants in all groups were told that the Government of Canada’s plan was to lower childcare costs across the country to $10 a day on average by 2025-2026. Most supported this initiative. In all three groups, almost all participants agreed that affordable child care was an important priority, even those for whom child care was not a personally relevant issue. Many felt that it was an economic necessity, especially for young families dealing with the high cost of living in major urban centres, such as Toronto, who required two incomes to get by. Several participants mentioned friends and family members who had to leave their careers and stay at home to take care of their children due to the prohibitively high cost of child care. Lowering the cost of child care was widely viewed as key to a better social and economic future for Canadians. It was also felt by some participants that the cost of child care was a factor in the decision by many to limit the number of children they had. In addition to making child care more affordable, participants felt that the Government of Canada should consider other initiatives (unspecified) that would make it easier for families to survive on a single income, allowing parents to stay at home with their children if they chose to do so.

Despite widespread support for an affordable daycare initiative, a few participants in each group questioned how $10 a day child care would be funded, expressing concern about the costs associated with an otherwise worthy initiative.

In Ontario, participants were told that agreements had been reached between the federal government and most provinces and territories, with the exception of Ontario, New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. Asked what they thought of this with regard to Ontario, participants were somewhat mixed in their response. Some felt that the delay was reasonable, and that it might be taking longer to reach a deal with Ontario given its population size and the resulting high cost and complexity of creating a subsidized day care program in the country’s largest province. Others, however, disagreed with this view and assumed that funding from the federal government would be proportionate to the populations in each province and territory. With this in mind, these participants did not feel that the deal with Ontario would be substantially different or more complex than the ones already agreed to with other jurisdictions. A few participants expressed disappointment that a deal had not yet been reached.

In the Quebec group, participants were informed that the Government of Canada and their province had reached an agreement stipulating that nearly $6 billion would be transferred to Quebec over the next five years with the aim of strengthening the early learning and childcare system within the province as well as improving working conditions for educators. All participants felt that this was a positive initiative. Several commented on their belief that the demand for child care continued to outpace the number of available spaces, resulting in parents (mothers, in particular) making a decision to leave the workforce in order to care for their children. It was added by a few that this deal would allow family incomes to rise, as both parents would be able to work and earn an income. Others commented that improving the pay of early child care educators also represented a positive step, feeling this would attract more talented and committed individuals to pursue careers in this field.

B.C. Floods (GVA North of Fraser River, GVA South of Fraser River)

Participants in the two groups from British Columbia discussed their reactions to the severe flooding that had taken place in the southwestern part of the province during the middle of November.

All participants were aware of the flooding and the large-scale damage it had inflicted on several communities. Most were also aware of some specific actions taken by the federal government, primarily related to the deployment of The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to assist in the rescue and relief effort, and an agreement with the United States government to allow affected Canadians to temporarily cross the Canada-U.S. border to either return home or enter the United States to get essential supplies, from unaffected U.S. border towns.

To aid discussion, participants were told that the Government of Canada had approved a Request for Federal Assistance from British Columbia to help with the disaster response. As a result, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) had been deployed to provide both air assets (e.g., assisting evacuations, supporting critical provincial supply chains) and a land component (e.g., assisting in the protection of critical infrastructure, access roads, etc.) to enable a whole-of-government relief effort.

Participants in both groups said that they fully expected the federal government to provide support to the province, given the scale of the disaster. They were generally pleased to see CAF personnel on the ground aiding in the relief effort. Feelings were more mixed, however, regarding the perceived adequacy of the Government of Canada response. Some were critical of the federal response and felt that it should have been stronger and more urgent. Others assumed that the federal response required a formal request for aid from the provincial government, and that a delay in this request might have been the real factor in what was perceived to be a slow response. While some positively noted the prime minister’s visibility during the crisis, it was felt that other federal and provincial representatives could have been more prominent in the relief effort.

When asked what additional supports the Government of Canada could provide to aid in the recovery effort, the most commonly mentioned recommendations included:

• CAF should lengthen their stay, working to help rebuild B.C.’s highways. Participants saw this as both a national and regional priority given the importance of these highways as major trade arteries from the Port of Vancouver to the rest of the country;
• More resources should be put toward flood-ravaged communities, such as Princeton and Merritt;
• Critical infrastructure, such as the damaged dikes, should be quickly rebuilt;
• Greater support should be provided to farmers whose livelihoods had been destroyed; and
• The Government of Canada should work to address the impact on food distribution and ensure that grocery store shelves remained stocked in order to prevent panic buying.

Other suggestions included the need for greater education around climate change, temporary aid to farm workers displaced by the floods, and further financial supports to assist individuals and homeowners affected by the flood. On a longer-term basis, some participants felt that government officials, at all levels, should reconsider the intensity of development taking place in flood-prone areas and support efforts to relocate these communities to safer locations.

COVID-19 Outlook (GTA Parents with Children Under 12, Nova Scotia Seniors, Rural Quebec, Calgary and Edmonton Parents with Children Under 12, GMA Parents with Children Under 12, Atlantic Canada Indigenous Peoples, Major Centres Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Mid-size Centres Quebec Seniors, GVA South of Fraser River, Rural Centres Atlantic Canada)

All focus groups held in November discussed the COVID-19 pandemic. Attitudes towards the pandemic shifted with the emergence of the Omicron variant in late-November, with those groups held prior to this development relatively optimistic regarding the outlook of the pandemic and those taking place after considerably more pessimistic.

Evaluating the Government of Canada’s Performance (GTA Parents with Children Under 12, Nova Scotia Seniors, Rural Quebec)

Three of the twelve groups discussed the performance of the Government of Canada throughout the pandemic. Discussion focused on both successes and areas for improvement, as well as the federal government’s performance at present relative to earlier on in the pandemic. These groups were held prior to the emergence of the Omicron variant.

To begin, participants were asked to recall anything that they felt the Government of Canada had done particularly well during the pandemic. This prompted a wide number of responses, including:

• Closing the borders early. Several participants felt that the federal government had acted expediently in closing Canada’s international borders to non-essential travel in the early stages of the pandemic, as well as introducing targeted measures, as needed, such as the restriction on flights from India during the rise of the Delta variant. Domestic travel requirements, as well as the deterrent value of stricter measures such as the quarantine hotels, were also mentioned by some as positive actions taken by the federal government.
• Financial supports, such as the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) were viewed by many participants as having been essential to keeping many Canadian families financially afloat throughout the pandemic.
• The vaccine rollout was seen as efficient and effective and received praise from several participants. Related to this, it was also mentioned that the procurement and planned rollout of booster shots for Canadians was indicative of the federal government’s preparedness.
• Regular and consistent communications to Canadians by the federal government was positively mentioned, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic, and notably the daily briefings from the prime minister.
• Mandating all federal employees to be fully vaccinated was also mentioned as a positive step, which participants felt would encourage higher vaccination rates. That said, the view was also raised by a small number of participants that vaccine mandates represented a degree of overreach by federal and provincial governments.

Among more general comments, many participants expressed the belief that the Government of Canada did the best it could, given the unprecedented circumstances and uncertainty it faced throughout the first waves of the pandemic. They were largely satisfied with the federal response as a whole. It was added by some that the federal government’s willingness to adapt its strategy based on changing information had also been beneficial to the overall response. A small number of participants, however, indicated that it was difficult at times to discern which actions were being implemented by the federal government and which were being carried out at the provincial level.

Asked to recall anything that they felt the Government of Canada could have done better in its handling of the pandemic, a variety of responses were provided:

• While some had positive views about the federal government’s actions in regard to travel restrictions, others felt that measures should have been put in place earlier than they were, particularly for air travel. These participants felt that the federal government had been slow to react in closing the borders and introducing travel restrictions. Some also had the view that too many loopholes remained in regard to air travel restrictions, making it easy for travelers from restricted countries to come to Canada by way of a third country.
• Some felt that the pandemic had exposed a basic lack of preparedness by Canada to mount a swift and effective domestic response. Given past experience with the 2003 SARS outbreak in Toronto, some felt that Canada should have had a larger stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE) materials already on hand. The lack of domestic vaccine production facilities was also pointed to as an area in which improvements needed to be made.
• A few participants across groups felt that a more unified national response had been warranted but not forthcoming, and that the Government of Canada could have worked more closely with provincial and territorial governments to ensure greater consistency across the country.
• Ongoing travel measures, such as the continued need to produce a negative COVID-19 test for any cross-border travel, was viewed by some as too costly and inconvenient, particularly for large families or those travelers only engaging in short trips across the Canada-U.S. border.
• Some felt that the federal government needed to be more equitable in approving vaccines that were widely utilized in countries like China and India, so that vaccinated travellers from these regions could be admitted under current policies.

Asked to evaluate whether the federal government’s response at present was better, worse, or about the same as in the early stages of the pandemic, participants reacted somewhat differently across the groups. While most in rural Quebec felt the federal response was better now, many in the Greater Toronto Area group expressed the opposite view, believing that Canada’s response had worsened in recent months. Most in the group from Nova Scotia believed the quality of the response had been about the same throughout.

Among those who felt that the federal response was better today than it was in the early days of the pandemic, there was a sense that it had improved with time and experience. The early days of the pandemic were characterized as uniquely difficult to manage, given the unprecedented nature of events and the high degree of uncertainty surrounding everything related to the virus and pandemic, including the correct course of action by government. These participants felt that as the virus evolved, experts and government officials had an opportunity to learn and adapt to the emerging science and data about COVID-19, resulting in a more informed and effective federal response to the pandemic.

For those feeling that the Government of Canada’s response had worsened over time, many felt that there was a general lack of urgency and action coming from the federal government now, and that it seemed ‘stuck’ in its handling of the pandemic or uncertain about what to do next. Some pointed to the economic toll of the pandemic, in particular, as an issue requiring greater attention and felt that the federal government should be doing more to revitalize the economy. Some also felt that having a federal election during the ongoing pandemic was imprudent.

Among individuals who generally felt the Government of Canada’s response to the pandemic had remained the same throughout, the prevailing sentiment was that the federal government had been more or less steady in its ability to provide leadership and respond to the virus as it evolved, with most relatively satisfied with the federal government’s handling of the pandemic.

COVID-19 Forecast (GTA Parents with Children Under 12, Nova Scotia Seniors, Rural Quebec, Calgary and Edmonton Parents with Children Under 12, GMA Parents with Children Under 12, Atlantic Canada Indigenous Peoples, Major Centres Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Mid-sized Centres Quebec Seniors)

Participants in these groups were asked for their opinions concerning the outlook for COVID-19 and whether they believed that the worst of the pandemic was now over.

While many felt that the worst was over, several participants expressed concern that the pandemic might yet take another negative turn in the months to come. Others felt uncertain about what to expect or expressed that while the worst might be over from a medical perspective that the effects of the pandemic would likely continue to be felt in a major way in terms of economic and mental health related consequences.

Among those who felt the worst of the pandemic had passed, several reasons were provided:

• The availability of COVID-19 vaccines and the relatively high vaccination rate within Canada. Several expressed the belief that the vaccine represented a ‘game-changer’ and that even though the virus may continue to spread, those infected would likely be able to avoid more severe outcomes, keeping hospitalizations and ICU numbers low.
• The vaccination of children 5-11 in the near future, which was also viewed as a reason to be optimistic that the spread of the virus could be curbed.
• The ability to perform rapid testing and more effective contact tracing was also mentioned as a source of encouragement, potentially making it easier to control outbreaks as they occurred.
• Widespread adoption of protective measures such as mask-wearing, social distancing, and regular hand sanitization. It was felt that these now-normalized practices would help eliminate the further spread of the virus.

Despite this optimism, several of these participants expected that the pandemic would still persist for some time to come, albeit with reduced impacts. For participants who felt the worst may still be yet to come regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of concerns were mentioned:

• The remaining unvaccinated portion of Canada’s population, which they felt could continue to enable the spread of the virus and the development of new variants. It was suggested that the Government of Canada could do more to reach out to vulnerable individuals who, whether it be due to homelessness, addiction, or mental health issues, had not yet been able to get vaccinated.
• A potential game-changing variant emerging was also mentioned as a possible concern by some stating that if a new strain were able to evade the vaccine, the pandemic could re-escalate quickly. These comments were mentioned prior to the discovery of the Omicron variant.
• Some felt that the pandemic would persist among the unvaccinated, which would continue to put a strain on hospitals and ICUs and have a negative impact on everyone as a result.
• Some were concerned about the potential of waning vaccine-effectiveness and breakthrough cases, which might leave many fully-vaccinated Canadians at risk in the future.
• Some thought that there could be longer-term effects on the healthcare system from all the strains placed on it by the pandemic so far, especially on healthcare workers whom they felt were at high risk of burn out and leaving the profession altogether.

Regionally, there were not many differences to be found across the groups. That said, the groups from rural Quebec, the Greater Montreal Area (parents of children under 12), and major centres in Ontario, were somewhat more optimistic, with all or most of these participants feeling that the worst of the pandemic was likely over. Among the group held after the discovery of the Omicron variant, composed of seniors (55+) from mid-sized centres in Quebec, the outlook towards the pandemic was unanimously negative with participants feeling the new variant represented a development of great concern.

Participants were next asked whether they believed that COVID-19 would still be an issue a year from now. Across groups, virtually all participants felt that the virus and its impacts would persist to some degree. The most commonly voiced feeling was that the virus would eventually become endemic requiring adaptation to a ‘new normal’ in which annual booster shots and seasonal increases were to be expected. Several felt that the population would eventually have to deal with COVID-19 much in the same way as with influenza and the common cold. Many participants felt that the virus would persist due to the fact that some portion of the population would likely remain unvaccinated, no matter what, resulting in continued outbreaks and the possibility of new variants emerging. It was added by a few that, due to differing rates of vaccination throughout the world, Canada should continue to monitor outbreaks globally and be prepared to implement travel restrictions, as needed. In addition to the medical impacts of the virus, a number of participants felt that the negative social and economic ramifications of the pandemic would certainly continue be felt a year from now.

Omicron Variant (GVA South of Fraser River, Rural Centres Atlantic Canada)

In the two groups held after the discovery of the Omicron variant in late November, participants were engaged in a discussion about this new variant and its potential implications.

Asked if they were aware of this new variant, all participants indicated that they had heard at least something about it. Most were aware of the association with southern Africa, as either the place of origin or where the variant was first identified, and some knew that the federal government had recently imposed new restrictions on travel to and from this region. Participants were also generally aware that the variant had already been detected on other continents, including Europe and North America, with a case recently reported in Canada (in Ottawa).

Some recalled hearing or seeing information about the variant suggesting that it could be especially dangerous to those 65+, and that additional precautions were required to protect this segment of the population. A few participants also reporting hearing about concerns that the variant might be able to evade the current vaccines, putting fully-vaccinated individuals at risk.

Generally, participants in both groups expressed a sense of exhaustion with the pandemic and this latest obstacle to a return to normalcy. Some, however, were more cautious about drawing any conclusions about the impact of the new variant, feeling that it was too early to make any determinations.

To aid further discussion, participants were provided with some details about the Omicron variant. They were told that public health authorities in South Africa had recently confirmed that this new COVID-19 variant had been detected in their country, and that the variant had since been named Omicron by the World Health Organization (WHO) and had been detected in other countries and continents.

Asked directly if they were worried about the emergence of the Omicron variant, most felt that it was too early to draw any conclusions about its impact. Some were confident in the ability of federal and provincial/territorial health officials to manage new variants, and felt that Omicron was unlikely to be the last new variant to emerge. A number of participants indicated that they were becoming somewhat desensitized to new developments surrounding the pandemic. For the few participants who did express worry about the Omicron variant, their concerns tended to be focussed on the well-being of those at greatest risk for severe illness, including older and immunocompromised loved ones. They also expressed concern that a new wave of infection might exacerbate public fatigue with the pandemic, leading to reduced adherence to safety protocols and new opportunities for the virus to spread.

Participants were asked whether the Omicron variant had changed their expectations about how long the pandemic would last. Most said it had not, and that they had already believed the pandemic would continue to persist for a long time to come, although some did express concern that this new variant would lead to continued restrictions and further delays in the effort to get back to ‘normal’. The general consensus was that the virus would eventually become endemic, controlled via regular booster shots, like influenza. Some suggested that, regardless of how long the medical impacts of the pandemic were felt, other related issues would likely persist for some time to come. Specifically, it was stated by many that more needed to be done to address the mental health issues and collective trauma that had resulted from the pandemic. It was also mentioned that it was important to look at issues beyond the virus itself, such as ensuring the economy did not collapse, as for some participants this represented a far greater danger to the overall welfare of the country.

Asked directly if they had heard anything about the Government of Canada’s response to the Omicron variant, many were unable to recall specifics. Some were aware of new restrictions recently imposed on travel to and from some countries in southern Africa, and a few recalled a recent press conference by the Chief Public Health Officer to discuss the new variant.

To clarify, participants were shown the following:

As a precautionary measure, until January 31, 2022, the Government of Canada is implementing enhanced border measures for all travellers who have been in the Southern Africa region — including South Africa, Eswatini, Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Namibia— within the last 14 days before arriving in Canada.

Foreign nationals who have travelled in any of these countries within the previous 14 days will not be permitted entry into Canada.

Canadian citizens, permanent residents and people with status under the Indian Act, regardless of their vaccination status or having had a previous history of testing positive for COVID-19, who have been in these countries in the previous 14 days will be subject to enhanced testing, screening, and quarantine measures.

Following this, participants were asked for their initial reactions and whether they felt that the Government of Canada should tighten restrictions, loosen them, or continue following its current approach.

Responses were mixed. Several participants expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of the new measures, given that the Omicron strain had already been detected in Canada. They also felt that the restrictions could be easily circumvented by travellers going to a third country first. Several others supported the new measures and felt that they could reduce or slow the spread of the new variant and help buy some time to better understand the threat. A small number of participants felt that the new travel restrictions needed to be more comprehensive, with enhanced screening applied to all travellers. Some described the new restrictions as ‘half measures’ that should either be strengthened or removed completely, in their view. A small number of participants felt a more holistic approach was necessary in dealing with this variant, finding the balance between keeping people safe while still living as normal a life as possible.

In light of this new variant, participants were asked to discuss the question of COVID-19 booster shots and whether they should be offered to all Canadians or just those in higher risk categories. All participants believed that booster shots should eventually be made available to all Canadians. That said, most felt that in rolling out the booster shots the federal and provincial/territorial governments should follow the same procedures as the initial vaccination campaign, focusing on those at greater risk first and gradually inviting more Canadians to receive their booster shot. Across both groups, the overarching opinion was that individuals should make use of every means of protection possible, especially considering the perceived contagiousness of the Omicron variant.

Vaccines for Children 5-11 (Calgary and Edmonton Parents with Children Under 12, GMA Parents with Children Under 12)

In these two parent groups, discussions were held surrounding the anticipated approval by Health Canada of COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 5-11. This approval came on November 19^th, for the Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty vaccine, after these groups were held.

To begin these discussions, participants were informed that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was presently under review by Health Canada for approval for children ages 5-11. Participants were then asked whether they were planning to have their children vaccinated.

In each group, opinions on this issue were largely split. In the Edmonton/Calgary group slightly more parents were planning on having their children vaccinated than not, while in the Greater Montreal Area group the reverse was true, with parents leaning towards not vaccinating their children in the near future, or feeling unsure. In neither group was there a dominant opinion, one way or the other.

Among parents planning on getting their children vaccinated, several indicated that they either worked in health care or were confident enough in the health care system and the underlying science that they did not feel any apprehension about the vaccine. Others added that their children already received several other vaccines, so they did not see why this vaccine should be of any greater concern. It was also mentioned by some that because children could transmit the virus getting them vaccinated was important to help reduce the spread in general as well as potentially protecting immunocompromised loved ones. Some also indicated having left the decision up to their children, who themselves had made the choice to get vaccinated once Health Canada’s approval was official.

For participants who indicated that they were not planning on getting their children vaccinated, at least not right away, the perceived low risk of adverse outcomes for children who contracted COVID-19 as well as feelings of general uncertainty around the safety of the vaccine were the primary drivers behind their decision. It was added by some that they felt the potential risks of the vaccine outweighed the benefits, and that they were concerned about the possibility of harmful side effects. A few parents clarified that they were not against vaccinations in general, and had vaccinated their children throughout their lives, but that they wanted more time to evaluate the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, specifically. It was also stated by a few participants that if more restrictions were introduced for unvaccinated children, then they might reconsider their position to ensure that their child or children would still be able to travel and engage in other public activities open only to those who were vaccinated. A small number of participants across both groups indicated that they were currently undecided about vaccinating their children and would be speaking with their partner and children, as well as doing their own research, prior to making any final decision.

As a follow-up, participants were asked if they had discussed vaccination with their children. Several parents acknowledged that they had. A few parents mentioned that they were waiting for the conversation to come up organically, with a small number saying that they did not feel any urgency to initiate this conversation with their children at this point. No parents reported being adamantly against discussing this topic with their children. Regionally, while most individuals in the Calgary/Edmonton group reported having had at least some form of conversation on this topic with their children, only a small number in the Montreal group had done so.

Those hesitant about vaccinating their children were asked about the factors influencing their decision, and the kinds of questions they would like to have answered in order to make an informed decision. A variety of responses were provided. Most commonly, parents wanted more information related to the following issues:

• Health risks associated with the vaccine versus those associated with remaining unvaccinated, in order to determine if the vaccine was necessary and the safest option. Getting more information and assurances about side effects, in particular, was a key factor for many in making a decision.
• Restrictions for unvaccinated children, and whether they would start to be imposed after vaccines were approved for this age group, similar to adults. For some this was an important factor in their eventual decision.
• Number of shots needed, including boosters, which was important for a few participants who wanted to know how long and involved the process would be, and the ongoing role that vaccines would play in their children’s lives.

COVID-19 Travel Restrictions (Calgary and Edmonton Parents with Children Under 12, GMA Parents with Children Under 12, Atlantic Canada Indigenous Peoples)

In these three groups, discussions were held surrounding awareness and views regarding the existing requirements for travellers entering Canada. Held in the first few weeks of November, these groups took place prior to the announcement of changes to these travel requirements (including the removal of the requirement of providing negative test results for trips to the U.S. that were under 72 hours) announced on November 19^th.

To begin, participants were asked whether they were aware of any existing requirements for travellers entering Canada, with a particular focus on any testing requirements that might be in place. Participants reported having heard a variety of details, including:

• The requirement for all incoming travellers to be fully vaccinated and provide a negative test result upon arrival in Canada. It was mentioned by some participants that they personally knew friends or family members who had been delayed in arriving home from international travel due to testing positive for COVID-19 during their trip;
• No need to quarantine upon arrival in Canada so long as travellers could provide a negative test result; and
• Some had heard that there would soon be rapid tests available for Canadian travellers, as this had become a regular practice in counties such as the United States. They felt that this would make travel far more convenient by allowing travellers to get same-day results rather than having to wait for 24-48 hours.

In each group, a small number of participants indicated they were not aware of what the current travel restrictions were. Several other participants had a sense of uncertainty regarding current travel restrictions and felt that they were constantly changing, which had created frustration for some and an unwillingness to travel. Some said that they had either postponed or cancelled trips based on concerns they might be unable to return to Canada if they misunderstood any requirements.

To aid discussion, participants were provided with the following information about testing requirements for travellers and then asked for their views:

To enter or return to Canada, all travelers 5 years of age or older must take a molecular test (a PCR test) within 72 hours of their planned entry into Canada and provide proof of a negative test result. As you may be aware, The United States recently reopened its land border to fully vaccinated Canadians, so these testing requirements apply to any Canadian who travels to the U.S.

Participants had varying opinions about whether these measures were appropriate. All members of the group from Montreal were against continuing these requirements, while reactions among the other two groups were more split, with some participants believing the requirements to be useful, others wanting to see them eliminated, and a few unsure and unable to decide.

Among those supportive of these measures, many felt that continued testing (even for fully vaccinated travellers) was an important measure of protection to help stop the spread of COVID-19, especially given indications that asymptomatic and fully-vaccinated people could still transmit the virus.

Those opposed to these testing requirements felt that they placed an undue burden on travellers, particularly in terms of the financial cost, logistics, and inconvenience. Several felt that testing was unnecessary for fully-vaccinated individuals, in particular, and some felt that it was time to return to normal and find a way to live with the virus, with vaccination providing enough protection. Those who were ambivalent said that they understood both sides of opinion on the issue but were unsure how to feel about whether these restrictions should continue to be in place.

Several participants reiterated the need, in their view, for more clear and consistent guidance from the Government of Canada regarding these restrictions and what travellers should expect going forward.

Health Canada Mask Messaging (Nova Scotia Seniors, Rural Quebec, Atlantic Canada Indigenous Peoples, Major Centres Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, GVA North of Fraser River, Mid-size Centres Quebec Seniors, GVA South of Fraser River, Rural Centres Atlantic Canada)

Participants in nine of the twelve groups were asked to evaluate messaging about medical masks that might be used by the Government of Canada in the future.

Four groups, including those made up of seniors 55+ in Nova Scotia, Indigenous Peoples from Atlantic Canada, seniors 55+ from mid-sized centres in Quebec, and individuals from small/rural centres in Atlantic Canada, were shown the following message:

Medical masks are recommended for:

• - People who are at risk of more disease or outcomes from COVID-19; and
• - People who are at a higher risk of exposure to COVID-19 because of their living situation.

Asked for their initial reactions, most felt that this messaging made sense and reflected the safety practices that they believed many Canadians were already engaged in. That said, some confusion emerged with respect to this statement. Some felt that as masks were already required in most indoor public places in Canada that this messaging was a bit unnecessary, though it was subsequently clarified that this message was related specifically to medical masks. Others wanted to know if this message inferred that the cloth masks they had been wearing were insufficient; if so, they felt it was a bit late for this sort of messaging. It was also felt by a small number of participants that this messaging would be clearer if it specified which groups of people were at higher risk, as well as the types of living situations referred to in the statement. A few participants also worried that this messaging might be counter-productive, and that some may see it as inferring that masks no longer needed to be worn outside of the situations included in the statement.

Asked if this message made them think about the type of mask they should be wearing, many indicated that they already wore medical masks exclusively, either because of a work requirement or personal choice. Some said that it did make them reconsider their choice of mask and felt that medical masks might be a better option going forward. A few others indicated that they already alternated between cloth and medical masks, depending on the situation and perceived risks involved. A small number of participants were under the impression that medical masks were still in short supply and felt that this message might exacerbate that situation. Further clarification regarding the definition of a ‘medical’ mask was also suggested as a potential addition to this messaging.

Questioned about whether this messaging would likely change which type of mask they would wear going forward, most participants indicated they would primarily wear medical masks in the future. Many were already doing this, while others said that they would make a change to follow any recommendation put forward by public health authorities. A small number of participants indicated they would continue to follow their own risk evaluations when choosing between cloth and medical masks.

The group made up of seniors 55+ in Nova Scotia was additionally asked if they felt that this messaging was directed towards them. None in the group thought it was explicitly targeted towards them, feeling it was more of a general message.

Five other groups, including those from rural Quebec, major centres in Ontario, Manitoba/Saskatchewan, and the two groups from the Greater Vancouver Area, were shown a slightly different message:

In general, while non-medical masks help prevent the spread of COVID-19, medical masks and respirators provide better protection.

Participants were asked for their reactions to this message and whether they were already aware of the information it conveyed. Awareness that medical masks provided better protection was high across all groups, with most participants indicating they had been informed of this before. Several participants felt that this messaging reflected common sense and said that they had been aware, since the early stages of the pandemic, that not all masks were equally protective. That said, most still felt that this kind of public messaging was useful, as reinforcement for some, and to inform and encourage others who might not be aware of this information or following this precaution as closely as they should.

Across these five groups, some participants had questions or concerns about the messaging, as follows:

• Some felt that this messaging did not reflect their understanding that cloth masks were still far better than no masks at all, and thought that this should be included to avoid any confusion in that respect.
• There was some confusion as to what a respirator was, with some participants believing this to refer to medical ventilators utilized in hospitals rather than as a component of medical masks.
• Some wondered if the exclusive focus on masks might imply that they were the primary protection against COVID-19 instead of vaccines, which they felt were of greater importance.
• A few thought that this message, while useful, was coming a bit late in the pandemic and should have been communicated earlier to Canadians.
• Some questioned whether medical masks were necessary in all situations and wanted to see more context provided with this message.
• There were a few participants who expressed concern that this message could cause further division in society based on the type of mask one chose to wear.
• A few raised concerns that this kind of message might prompt people to rush to buy medical masks, potentially causing shortages.

Most agreed, when asked, that it was important for the federal government to share this information with Canadians. These participants generally felt that the statement provided good reinforcement for those already regularly wearing medical masks while encouraging others to consider them or use them more often. It was added that so long as a significant portion of the country remained unvaccinated that variants could continue to emerge and that this was an important public health practice to maintain.

This being said, in each group there were participants who felt that the messaging could be improved. Some suggested that additional details should be added, including a definition of a medical mask and a respirator for clarity, or reassurance that those wearing cloth masks have not been doing the wrong thing, as they might otherwise feel discouraged. Some suggested that this message should come from provincial and territorial health authorities rather than the federal government, as these authorities had been primarily responsible for much of the communication during the pandemic.

A few participants felt that it would not be a prudent use of federal resources to spend money on disseminating this message, because this information about masks, in their view, was already widely known and intuitive to most. A very small group of participants outright opposed the message because they did not believe that wearing facemasks was an effective method of protection and felt that mask requirements should be eliminated altogether.

Health Canada Public Health Measures Ad Disaster Check (GVA South of Fraser River, Rural Centres Atlantic Canada)

Participants in these two groups, held following the emergence of the Omicron variant, were asked to evaluate a potential COVID-19-related advertisement currently being developed by the Government of Canada.

Prior to viewing the first version of the spot participants were informed that the advertisement was being developed by the Government of Canada and was designed for social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat, and thus was quite short. Participants were also informed that the videos were not yet in their finished form. The groups were then shown each spot twice, before being asked for their initial impressions.

Version 1

The above video ad begins with a scene of a person in a blue jacket walking through a hall and shuffling to the right of the hall in order to follow the directional arrows on the floor (which are meant to direct flow of traffic), indicating that people on one side of the hall go one way and on the other side go the other way. Then, the scene changes to an individual putting on a bandage after receiving a vaccine by a nurse sitting at a table. The next scene is of an individual wearing a jacket and scarf walking by a shop and putting on their mask, with the sound of a car horn in the background. The scene then shifts to a shot of a person washing their hands, then sanitizing video game console controllers with a paper towel and spray before use. Subsequently, a short clip of an individual taking out a COVID-19 test from its packaging is shown. Large white text reading “Let’s keep up the good work,” and “Canada.ca/coronavirus” under that is shown on top of a clip of a group of friends in a living room watching television and laughing with a bowl of food. In the background, rhythmic music plays as the voiceover says, “We’ve found our rhythm for staying well, so let’s keep up the good work by following public health measures.” At the end of the video, the Government of Canada audio is played as the video fades out and simultaneously says, “A message from the Government of Canada.”

Across both groups, participants expressed mixed feelings regarding the advertisement. Several individuals commented that they would likely scroll past the video if it popped up on their social media feeds, while others added that the advertisement was too fast-paced for them to absorb the information, though this was less of an issue the second time they watched it. Some thought that the advertisement was generally geared towards younger demographics. And many participants felt that the upbeat tone of the video, in particular, was disconnected from the present reality and how most people were feeling about the pandemic, in their view, given the recent emergence of the Omicron variant.

Asked if they understood the message behind the video, most participants felt that it was focused on encouraging people to continue following public safety measures and congratulating them on their efforts so far. There were divergent views on whether this message resonated. While a few participants indicated they felt the messaging was important, as many were still at risk of COVID-19, several felt the tone of the advertisement was contradictory, with the question being raised that if everyone was doing such a good job, why did COVID-19 restrictions continue to persist? Several participants felt that the video was trying to make life in the pandemic seem ‘fun’ at a time when many Canadians were quite frustrated by how long COVID-19 measures had lasted so far. Asked if the advertisement spoke to them, most participants (even those from younger demographics) expressed that they did not relate much to the messaging or the visuals contained within the spot.

Participants were next shown a longer version of the original concept.

Version 2

The above video ad begins with a scene of a person in a blue jacket walking through a hall and shuffling to the right of the hall in order to follow the directional arrows on the floor (which are meant to direct flow of traffic), indicating that people on one side of the hall go one way and on the side go the other way. Then, the scene changes to an individual putting on a bandage after receiving a vaccine by a nurse sitting at a table. The next scene is of an individual wearing a jacket and scarf walking by a shop and putting on their mask, with the sound of a car horn in the background. The scene then shifts to a shot of a person washing their hands, and then of a person dancing in a hall and sliding into a living room to sit with two other individuals. One of the people in this room are shown spraying a paper towel and disinfecting video game console controllers before use. After this, a shot of a person’s hand on a handle opening a glass door is shown. Subsequently, a short clip of an individual taking out a COVID-19 test from its packaging is shown. The video then spirals upwards to a clip of that same person lying down on a bed and going on their phone. Large white text reading “Let’s keep up the good work,” and “Canada.ca/coronavirus” under that is shown on top of a quick shot of all of the clips that were shown throughout the ad. In the background, rhythmic music plays as the voiceover says, “We’ve found our rhythm for staying well, so let’s keep up the good work by following public health measures.” At the end of the video, the Government of Canada audio is played as the video fades out and simultaneously says, “A message from the Government of Canada.”

Across both groups, responses to this spot were generally more positive, though many did not change their original views. Among those who felt that this longer version improved upon the first, many felt that the extended version was more developed and provided greater clarity and understanding for the viewer. A few participants also indicated that they felt the longer version had a more subdued tone, which they felt to be a positive. Some said that they related to the cleaning practices depicted in the spot, mentioning that they were commonplace in many workspaces, while a small number of participants felt that some of these practices, particularly wiping down video game controllers prior to using them, were unrealistic. A small number of participants preferred the first concept, stating that they felt the brevity and faster pace of that version made it more enjoyable.