Our search yielded a total of 378 articles across the three newspapers. After removing the duplicates (n=55), the remaining 323 articles were screened based on the inclusion criteria. A final total of 62 articles were included for analysis. Reasons for exclusion are shown in Figure 1. Inter-rater reliability testing revealed strong agreement between the two independent reviewers (κ = 0.830).
The highest number of articles came from The Globe and Mail (n= 24, 39%), followed by The Toronto Star (n= 19, 31%) and The National Post (n= 17, 27%). The majority of articles struck a neutral tone (n= 41, 66%) (Figure 2).
Thematic Analysis:
Three major themes were identified within the articles. These included: 1) The role of scientific and expert evidence in implementing travel restrictions; 2) Federal legislation, regulations and enforcement of international travel measures; and 3) Compliance with WHO guidelines in travel restriction policy- and decision-making.
1) The role of scientific and expert evidence in implementing travel restrictions
Despite measures taken to restrict international travel as early as January, the media criticized the Canadian response as inadequate and slow. The federal government justified their decisions not to implement harsher border restrictions by citing scientific evidence:
“[W]e are not closing the border to any further steps, but we will make those decisions based on what science tells us” – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (14).
“I think Canadians think that we can stop this at the border, but what we see is a global pandemic meaning that border measures actually are highly ineffective and in some cases can create harm” – Health Minister Patty Hajdu (14).
Similarly, articles cited Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore as examples of countries that had demonstrated adequate preparedness and response; these were regions that quickly implemented widespread thermal testing and travel restrictions (15, 16). By contrast, the media reported that the Canadian government deemed thermal testing of returning travellers unnecessary, citing a lack of scientific evidence in favour of the practice. Specifically, during the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003, 2.3 million travellers were screened using thermal tests at Canadian airports, but these tests were later found to be ineffective in detecting SARS cases (17, 18). However, Until March 10, the federal government continued to assert to the House of Commons Health Committee that the pandemic presented a low risk to Canadians (19). It was not until March 18 that Canada closed its borders to most international travellers (20).
Despite the federal government’s stance, articles described actions implemented at the provincial level that did not align with federal action, including mass testing, screening of international travellers, stricter enforcement of quarantine orders, and recommendations for the use of masks (17, 19, 21-23). Other articles reported that the provincial leaders of Alberta, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island saw value in the travel restrictions implemented by other countries, including closing international borders (21, 24).
ii) Media scrutiny of federal legislation, regulations and enforcement of international travel measures
On March 25, 2020, the federal government announced an emergency order under the Quarantine Act, 2005, which permits the screening of travellers entering Canada. Under the emergency order, any person entering Canada was required to self-isolate for 14 days regardless of whether or not they had symptoms of COVID-19(25). However, the media reported that provincial and federal travel screening measures and self-isolation guidelines were difficult to understand and inconsistent across jurisdictions (21, 23). In particular, the media noted that self-isolation for healthcare workers varied by province and over time (23). Restrictions were also implemented for travel between provinces, raising concerns over “mobility rights” of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By early April, at least eight provinces and territories had some sort of border checkpoint in place, but the content of these restrictions varied by jurisdiction (Table 1). However, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador upheld the provincial order barring an individual from entering the province and emphasised the province’s travel restrictions were consistent with the Constitution in the interest of public health and contained the pandemic spread (26).
Further federal regulation was enacted on April 14, 2020 when regulatory amendments under the Contraventions Act came into force. These changes provided increased flexibility for law enforcement agencies to issue fines to individuals in violation of the Quarantine Act (27). These actions received mixed coverage from the media, with some articles calling for the use of the Emergencies Act to restrict movement within the country as well as upon return from international travel (28). Others, however, argued that such sweeping measures would restrict the liberty of those infected with COVID-19 (29).
Some articles also criticized the federal government for adopting a preferential approach to the United States (US) when closing the borders to other countries (30). Despite the fact provincial data from Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia showed that many of Canada’s early COVID-19 cases came from the US (30), the federal government was slower to implement travel restrictions against the US compared to the action taken against other countries.
When it came to enforcing travel measures, the role of the CBSA – the federal law enforcement agency responsible for border control, immigration, and customs services in Canada – was closely scrutinized by the media. Despite the CBSA reporting that its officers were well trained to identify visible signs of illness and to ask screening questions about possible symptoms, CBSA was criticized for inadequate screening measures and a lack of transparency regarding screening for travel history and passenger nationality(31). The media also reported that there were inadequate screening measures in place at Canadian airports and that many health officials were screening passengers for COVID-19 symptoms over the phone, potentially increasing the risk of dishonesty from travellers. The media reported that this practice was attributed to a lack of sufficient personnel to accommodate in-person screening of all passengers (18).
iii) Compliance with WHO guidelines in travel restriction policy- and decision-making
In the early days of the pandemic, much of the media attention across the world and in Canada focused on the WHO’s handling of the pandemic(32, 33). In accordance with the IHR (2005), the WHO recommended against travel or trade restrictions in response to COVID-19. However, as noted by the federal government, the pandemic shook national commitments to multilateral relations and contributed to a wave of protectionist sentiment and national border closures. In Canada, however, the media reported the federal government’s confidence in and commitment to WHO guidance, with the Chief Public Health Officer noting that “we are a signatory to the International Health Regulations and we’ll be called to account if we do anything different”(29). This rationale was used to explain a reluctance to close national borders. This stance was often in conflict with the perspectives of provincial premiers, some of whom argued that the federal government’s delays were contributing to the spread of COVID-19(30), and resulting in individual provinces implementing their own travel restrictions.