rankourabu

Lets assume the bolded part is true - then this really screws over those truly essential workers who fly for work.

Lets assume the bolded part is not true - then people who have nothing to do with actually being essential, will continue to declare themselves "essential" (it really isnt that hard) and this solves nothing.apart from stopping people going on sun vacations - until of course resorts/agencies start offering tests as part of the package, give it a couple weeks.

skybluesea

Really, how many working class folks can return from this all-inclusive and also afford to QUARANTINE for 14 days.

MOD is right...PCR decision happened in haste because the political cost was too high for politicians to be seen turning a blind eye to all those beachgoers, who when they return with their suntans will create lot of envy at home.

Canadians may be nice people, but C-19 fatigue makes for little room for political error or sloth.

YOWgary

​​​​​​
And illegal.

This was never an option, I don't know why anyone's still discussing it like it was.

The government have been very specific that this week's half-baked policy exists in large part *because* a travel ban is wholly out of the question.

The Lev

I love this in the Q&A from the government:
Q. Who will pay for the cost of a PCR test abroad?I can't imagine any travel insurance plan covering COVID testing when you show no symptoms because the government now requires it. Be up-front that this is the government adding roughly $100 per person to the cost of international travel.

Here's a question for them: "I got my PCR test done as required, but have not received my test results yet. Will I be allowed to board my flight?

The Lev

You appear to have a very narrow definition of working class and broad definition of wealthy. In case you haven't noticed, there are millions of Canadian from all walks of life who are currently working from home and thus can return to work while in quarantine. It would come as quite a surprise to many of them that somebody on an IBB thinks they are wealthy.

skybluesea

To avoid duplicate post, please read my post #148.

And yes, "politically" out of the question, but not "legally" out of the question.

tcook052

No, not as I read it as the rules state proof must be presented so no results, no boarding:

required to provide written or electronic documentation showing they received a negative result from a COVID-19 test conducted within 72 hours prior to their scheduled boarding.

sydneyracquelle

Many white collar workers have been working remotely since March. 14 days at home is no big deal in the middle of winter.

The Lev

That is how I would also read the rules as written. So if you are in an area where testing delays are like Ontario was a couple of months ago where test results were taking 4-5 days, you would essentially have no way to get home (other than maybe fly to US and drive across).

72 hours may sound like plenty of time but if you have an early morning flight it means that the lab basically has two days to get you your results. Even now, Ontario's standard is to get 80% of test results within 48 hours - so you would have a 20% chance of missing your flight if the jurisdiction you are in is as good as Ontario.

YOWgary

Your post 148 makes wild leaps of constitutional imagination, specifically that a broad travel ban would somehow break long precedent, pass the Oakes test and be allowed to directly violate Section 6.1.

That said, someone with your background in border control and long history on Flyertalk will no doubt recognize that this is not the place for a lengthy debate on hypothetical scenarios in which the Government might be permitted to override basic Charter rights.

Since that would be better suited to a law-school moot court than this forum, let's move on to the considerably more relevant fact that this Government has repeatedly stated not only that it will not attempt to enact any such legislation, but that its position is that it does not have legal authority to do so, as Ministers Blair, LeBlanc, Garneau and Freeland have said consistently over time, and as recently as this week.

Consistent with this week's statements, the Government has (and is using) any number of ways to address extra-national travel, up to and including banning flights to and from specific countries, and banning airlines from transporting any passenger with symptoms.

The Government argues that it cannot ban travel outright, and that's what's actually relevant this month. That's what's led them to this half-baked plan instead, they've been very clear about saying so.

skybluesea

Who here believes that Ministers of the Crown have reacted with such urgency, and possibly recklessly to implement the PCR test with barely any notice to airlines and travelers, without first reading the political tea-leaves that a huge wave of disgust is coming against all those returning sun-tanned Canadians.

I watched today the NDP Minister of Health here in BC who pretty much said what I'm saying...spoiled Canadians traveling abroad are harming everyone else. This follows up on the BC Premier saying the same thing in November before the Winter Break, and I can pretty much write the upcoming political scripts that will blame these folks for increasing infections (even if it is NOT true). Well worn for politicians to point fingers, and those perceived to be jet-setters are easy target...come-on who here doesn't know that?

Ultimately, the PCR test requirements is NOT a medical prescription, it is a political prescription to what ails Canada, and that ailment is envy / C-19 fatigue.

Fiordland

The 80% number is a bit silly. It is also not people, but 80% of entries. There are going to be multiple entries from the same person if we have people who drive/crew trucks, trains, ships, and aircraft.

The CBC article says half (so 40%) are truck drivers. You would assume most of them are traveling back and forth across the boarder. Many of them are going to US or Mexico nations dropping a load and returning.

So who exactly are the other 40%. Aircrew, shipcrew and train crew should be a good part of that.

skybluesea

1. Minister of Transport clearly says you're SOL if you planned non-essential travel after C-19 hit. So basically the $100 is on traveler for failing to heed the warning about NON-ESSENTIAL TRAVEL.

2. NO ! The FAQ is abundantly clear, again you're SOL if you can't get your test results back by check-in time.

Let's be clear, this half-baked scheme is going to be a mess, and we will have true examples of hardship like when traveler gets urgent call to get home, but is denied boarding and fails to return in time before a loved one expires.

In my case, the consequence of the PCR test requirement is real and substantial.

We figured out today that until this policy is lifted, my spouse and I cannot travel outside of Canada together. Given the risk that a long travel delay could occur arising from the testing requirement, we have decided that one of us MUST remain in Canada at all times in case a need exists for urgent return to Vancouver.

Why, we are the lawful substitute decision-maker for a parent that unfortunately is no longer able to make any life-safety decisions, including providing informed consent for medical care. This isn't going to work well over Zoom, especially as we will need to communicate with our parent on sensitive and possibly life-altering circumstances.

Life is about making choices, and politicians in Canada have made their choice based on a lot of NON-ESSENTIAL travel that, right or wrong, is perceived to be a great threat to fatigued Canadians everywhere.

tcook052

With the airlines operating at a small fraction of their normal schedules would aircrews really help make up much of that 40%? I find that hard to believe.

skybluesea

Well, plenty of travelers appear on these flights

Assuming The Lev is referring to tomorrow, Saturday, Jan 2, and these folks are going for a typical week, how many of these travelers are going to cancel their outbound now that they know the PCR test requirement is needed on the return (Jan 9).

The fun may begin even before the 7th???