Skipping the U.S. and taking a vacation to East Coast this year? It will cost you
Beitman Brener, a lawyer in Kingston, Ont., spent about six months planning the trip, looking at various options to stay in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
'We are young, we don't have all the money in the world, we have a mortgage. So we went on this trip and we thought, 'oh, this will be affordable compared to something like Japan' . … We were going to cook our own food,' she said in a recent interview.
They rented a recreational vehicle in Montreal for about $6,000, and between campground parking fees, gasoline, groceries, park passes, a round of golf, and a couple of dinners out, Beitman Brener said the total added up to $15,000.
'It was the most incredible trip. We loved it. It was worth it. It was incredible. The East Coast is so extraordinary,' she said. 'But it was $15,000 and we talked to our friend — they went to Japan for three weeks for the same price, with flights. And I said to my husband, 'well, we could have gone to Japan for the same price.''
Story continues below advertisement
This year, as a trade war grinds on with the United States, Canadians who decide to vacation within their country are realizing their patriotism comes with a hefty price tag — and some are choosing to scale back their plans.
For Alick Tsui, a St. John's, N.L., resident, a recent five-day, two-person trip to Port Rexton, N.L., cost him about $3,000. He is avoiding spending his dollars in the United States because of U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war and comments of annexing Canada.
But high prices are forcing him to cut costs for future trips in Canada. 'Before I would stay for four nights, now I may cut it down to three nights. But that won't change my plan to travel.'
Get daily National news
Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
Tsui said he and his wife try to save money with 'economical' lunches from gas stations. 'But nighttime, we try to find whatever we can to have a good meal. Not expensive, but a good meal,' he said. The couple went to Vietnam and Thailand earlier this year for about 10 days; that trip cost about one-third the price that he usually pays for a week's vacation in Canada.
Beitman Brener, meanwhile, says she wanted to take a mother-daughter vacation this month after the lawyer had some unexpected time off. The duo sought to travel within Canada on a budget of $3,000 for four nights and five days. They too are avoiding travelling to the United States.
Story continues below advertisement
She looked into several locations, including Quebec City and Manitoulin Island in Ontario, but — even with sharing a hotel or Airbnb room — their accommodation costs would have been about $3,000. Along with food and gas, the total would have been about $6,000, she said.
They couldn't justify the cost so they chose to spend two nights at a boutique hotel in their hometown. The fact each vacation has to be planned down to every meal because of high costs has removed some of the joy of taking a spontaneous holiday in Canada, she said.
A scan of individual round trip flights from Toronto to cities on the East Coast for the week of Aug. 18 -23 showed prices to Halifax ranging from around $700 for Flair Airlines to nearly $1,700 for WestJet; about $1,200 via Air Canada to $2,500 via Air Transat to St. John's; and between $1,500 and $3,000 on Air Canada to Charlottetown.
A vehicle rental for five days the week of Aug. 18 -23 in Halifax, St. John's, and Charlottetown ranged from an average of $1,500 for an SUV to $1,000 for a sedan. For the week, hotel rooms in Halifax, St. John's and Prince Edward Island ranged from around $200 a night to $500.
Richard Powers, associate professor at University of Toronto's Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, said two main reasons can help explain why travel within Canada is so expensive — lack of competition among airline services and fallout from COVID-19.
Story continues below advertisement
Airlines haven't reinstated some of routes they cut down at the height of the pandemic, he said. How long the fallout from COVID-19 will last is anybody's guess, Powers said. 'That's the million-dollar question.'
When it comes to accommodation, he said the high prices can be blamed on minimal supply. 'I'm just booking Vancouver for the fall, and I'm having trouble finding a place for under $500 a night,' he said. 'That's a lot.'
Restaurant bills in Canada add up — when compared with those in Europe — because of the tipping culture that adds 15 to 20 per cent for each meal, he said.
With the push to support Canadian tourism, Powers said, people are willing to pay 'a bit of a premium.'
'How much premium is the question? And it's almost getting out of control.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Global News
16 minutes ago
- Global News
Ontario tops infrastructure funding pot with $1.6B more for towns and cities
The Ford government is topping up a pot of money designed to help towns and cities boost lagging housing numbers by building more roads and sewers. A new commitment of $1.6 billion was announced by Premier Doug Ford and Infrastructure Minister Kinga Surma in Ottawa on Monday at the opening of an annual municipal conference. 'Working with our municipal partners, we're going to keep lowering costs, investing in infrastructure and cutting red tape so we can keep the dream of homeownership alive in Ontario,' Ford said in a statement. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy The new money will go toward the Municipal Housing Infrastructure Program, which has already had $2.3 billion announced for it, taking the total to almost $4 billion. The fund is split into four streams, allowing municipalities to apply for money for agriculture and irrigation, two types of water systems and 'core servicing' like roads or bridges. Story continues below advertisement 'Investments in municipal infrastructure have consistently proven to be the best way to protect local, provincial and national economies,' Robin Jones, president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, said in a statement distributed by the Ford government. 'These investments will not just help to build homes, they will provide thousands of jobs in communities across the province and lay the foundation for long-term productivity. We commend Premier Ford for these important investments.' The announcement comes with Ontario well off pace in its attempts to build 1.5 million homes by 2031. The latest data from the government shows that, even after adding long-term care beds and student dorms to its statistics, Ontario fell tens of thousands of new homes short of its target last year.
16 minutes ago
Who controls the food supply? Proposed changes to seed reuse reopens debate
It's a small change that risks cultivating a big debate. On one side is the principle of farmer's privilege — the traditional right of Canadian farmers to save seeds at the end of a growing season and reuse them the next year. On the other is the principle of plant breeders' rights — the right of those who develop new seeds and plants to protect and profit from their discoveries. The issue has been dormant for a decade. Now, proposed changes to government rules regarding plant breeders' rights are reviving that debate. It also raises questions about how Canada gets its food and who controls what is grown. Ultimately, it's about food security, said Keith Currie, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The group supports the changes, which include narrowing the scope of farmer's privilege. Not only keeping us competitive to keep food costs down, but also to make sure that we maintain new varieties coming forward for that food availability. Enlarge image (new window) The proposed changes could reduce the right of farmers to save and reuse seeds for crops like fruits and vegetables. Photo: The Canadian Press / Giordano Ciampini In a notice (new window) dated Aug. 9, the government announced proposed changes to Canada's Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations — a form of intellectual property protection for plants, similar to a patent. The regulations give plant breeders a monopoly over the distribution of their product for a set period, as a way to to encourage investment and innovations such as varieties with higher yields or more resistant to drought or pests. It's a big business. Estimates of the economic impact of the seed industry in Canada range from $4 billion to $6 billion a year. The right to reuse The changes would remove the right of farmers to save and reuse seeds and cuttings from protected fruits, vegetables, ornamental varieties, other plants reproduced through vegetative propagation and hybrids. For most plants recognized under the law, the protections last for 20 years. Personal gardens and many other kinds of crops such as wheat, cereals and pulses, where seed saving is more widespread, would not be affected. Among the other proposed changes is to extend the protection for new varieties of mushrooms, asparagus and woody plants like raspberries and blueberries to 25 years from the current 20 years. A public consultation on the changes runs until Oct. 18. Enlarge image (new window) NDP agriculture critic Gord Johns is calling for parliamentary hearings into the proposed changes. Photo: Kendal Hanson/CHEK News NDP agriculture critic Gord Johns says the changes raise an important issue for Canadians. He questions why the government is holding the consultation in summer when most farmers are focused on growing and harvesting crops — not drafting submissions for public consultations. They keep doing this over and over again, said Johns of the federal government. They announce regulatory changes that impact farmers and their livelihoods [and] they schedule the consultation period during the busiest time of the year for farmers. Johns said companies producing new kinds of seed should be adequately compensated for their innovation and intellectual property. But he said farmers who grow and harvest the food Canadians eat shouldn't be starved by big corporations choking off their seed supply. He wants the House of Commons agriculture committee to hold hearings and take a closer look at the changes being proposed. A spokesperson for Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Heath MacDonald said the government is committed to encouraging innovation, investment, research and competitiveness in Canadian agriculture, horticulture and ornamental industries. The spokesperson said the government will review all feedback before determining next steps. Access vs. innovation Former prime minister Stephen Harper's government triggered a debate in 2015 when it adopted measures to bring Canada's rules more in line with guidelines adopted by the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, known as UPOV 91. The rules are separate from patent law or technology use agreements which some seed companies use to prevent farmers from saving and reusing seeds. Changes to plant breeders' rules are now again on the table. Last year, a government consultation resulted in 109 submissions, the majority supportive of change. Meanwhile, lobbyists have been busy behind the scenes. According to the federal lobbying registry, 13 people from several different groups or companies are currently registered to lobby on plant breeders' rights including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and Swiss-based Syngenta, owned by Sinochem, a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Enlarge image (new window) Wheat is not included in the proposed changes, but a research director for the National Farmers Union worries they could be the start of a 'slippery slope.' Photo: Reuters / Todd Korol Cathy Holtslander, director of research and policy for the National Farmers Union, says the proposed changes risk hurting farmers while increasing profits and the power of seed-producing companies — often multinationals with foreign ownership. While the changes are focused on an area of agriculture where seed saving is less common, Holtslander warns the changes are a slippery slope that could lead to an erosion of the rights of farmers. If they were to go after wheat with the amendment, there would be a huge uproar and people would really be angry and push back, Holtslander said. She said what's being proposed paves the way for other crops to be included later. The seed industry does not want farmers' privilege to exist for any seed. They want to be able to require people to buy new seed every year, she said. Holtslander's group plans to fight the proposed changes. She said the issue goes beyond the question of individual farmers reusing seed. If the big multinational companies control the seed, they control our food supply, she said. Lauren Comin, director of policy for Seeds Canada, acknowledges the issue can be controversial but argues Canada needs strong intellectual property protection if it wants access to the newest innovations to compete on the world stage. It's incredibly important to have these frameworks to encourage investment companies, businesses, public entities, to know that they are going to somehow be compensated and protected, Comin said. She said that while the changes provide that certainty and that incentive for investment, she wants them to go further. While acknowledging there isn't enough certified seed for all of Canada's cereals and small grains crop, Comin would also like to see farmers compensate plant breeders when they reuse seeds, as they do in Europe. The farmer's privilege does not say that that use is free, she said. [Farmers] can choose to buy the latest and greatest product of innovation, which means that there is a tremendous amount of investment and effort that went toward developing this improved variety. Or they can decide that they don't value innovation, and they can go back to a variety that's unprotected and grow that. Currie, an Ontario grains and oil seed farmer who saves and reuses seeds, says Canada needs to balance the two principles. He says farmer's privilege is key to Canada's competitiveness, but so is access to new varieties of seeds and plants. While I do understand where some of the multinationals want to have better control, I believe in order for the industry to be viable, farmers have to have some control as well, he said.
Edmonton Journal
16 minutes ago
- Edmonton Journal
Opinion: Ordering Air Canada workers back to work erodes the middle class
Article content Why should Canadians care about any of this? Put simply, they should care because the middle class is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It depends on rules and legal frameworks that give workers bargaining power. And the key to working bargaining power is the right to strike. Without it, corporations and the rich will gobble up ever larger pieces of the economic pie and workers will only be left with crumbs. Article content Defending worker bargaining power is particularly urgent in the context of the current affordability crisis. No political party or government can legitimately say that they're on the side of working people if they don't have a plan to maintain or expand worker bargaining power. If they're doing the reverse — as is the case with Section 107 — then they're part of the problem, not the solution. Article content The fear among Canadian unions and workers is that if the Liberals get away with watering down the right to strike at the federal level (which has legislative responsibility for about 10 per cent of Canadian workplaces) it will only be a matter of time before provincial governments draft their own versions of Section 107 for provincially regulated workplaces. Article content Article content Workers and unions see this as an existential threat to the post-Second World War 'Great Compromise' which saw workers agree to swear off wildcat strikes in exchange for a regulated system of labour relations that promised fair outcomes for both workers and employers. This compromise was instrumental in building the broadly shared prosperity that helped create the Canadian middle class. Article content This is why Air Canada workers are defying the back-to-work order — and why others are promising to follow suit. If the system created by the Great Compromise no longer can be counted on to deliver fair outcomes for workers, why should workers respect it? Article content Federal Jobs Minister Patty Hadju says she's using Section 107 to secure 'labour peace.' The irony is that the continued use of this section in ways it was never intended is bringing about the opposite: the potential collapse of the Great Compromise. As workers from that era famously chanted from their wildcat picket lines: 'No justice, no peace.' Article content Article content If Prime Minister Carney really wants labour peace — and if he doesn't want to go down in history as the prime minister who weakened worker bargaining power at the worst possible time — then he needs to rescind the back-to-work order for Air Canada flight attendants and repeal Section 107. Article content Now is the time to remember and reinforce the Great Compromise, not abandon it. As the old saying goes: those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. For the sake of the Canadian middle class, let's try to avoid that mistake. Article content
