Tourism, Security and Safety From Theory to Practice

SARS in Toronto
Forty-four people died in Toronto as a consequence of SARS. The first case of
SARS in Toronto was identified in a hospital on March 7, 2003, and the first death
occurred when the son of a woman who attended a wedding in Hong Kong died in
Recovering from SARS
145
H7898_Ch08.qxd 8/24/05 8:08 AM Page 145

---

hospital on March 13, 2003. However, when the author returned from Beijing on
March 23, 2004, SARS was not a concern in Toronto or Canada. It had been men-
tioned as occurring in China in the press but no steps had been taken to prepare for
it in Canada. The author entered Vancouver with the most cursory of immigration
examinations—two words: “Welcome home!”
However, the consequences for Toronto were rapid and far-reaching. The press
attention to tourism in Toronto came with the headline: “Major conference can-
celled due to outbreak” (GM, April 3, 2004). This referred to the decision of the
American Association for Cancer Research to cancel its annual meeting in
Toronto. This event was expected to bring 28,000 delegates to the city. The can-
cellation occurred in spite of a letter from Toronto’s medical Officer of Health that
said that “the risk of SARS transmission among the general population is
extremely low” (GM, April 3, 2004).
Space does not permit the detailed history of SARS in Toronto: suffice it to say
that the incidences of SARS were largely contained to hospitals, and there were
never people walking on the streets of Toronto with protective masks. There were
two waves of SARS in Toronto: the initial wave, which resulted in a World Health
Organization (WHO) Travel Advisory issued on April 22, 2003. This advisory was
lifted on April 30, 2003, and on May 14, 2003, Toronto was removed from the list
of areas with recent local transmission. However, on May 20, 2003, a patient
infected others in a Toronto hospital and Toronto was put back on the WHO list of
places with recent local transmission. Toronto was eventually removed from this
list on July 2, 2003 (Tufts, 2004).
The crisis resulted in a sharp and substantial decline in tourism activity, massive
cancellations of reservations and events, and layoffs in the tourism industry and
related sectors. This came at a time when global and Toronto tourism were already
struggling from other events—post-September 11 jitters and fears of global terrorism,
enhanced security measures and their associated costs, economic uncertainty, and the
war in Iraq all taking their toll. However, the consequences of SARS for Toronto were
much greater than in the case of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The Toronto hotel sector was immediately and significantly affected: average
hotel occupancy rates fell to 46.6% in April 2003, in comparison with 68% a year
earlier and there was an estimated decline of tourism expenditures of $503 million,
or 28% in 2003 in comparison with 2002 (Tufts, 2004).
It should be mentioned, however, that the consequences were not confined to
Toronto for two reasons:
1. Toronto is a major point of entry providing access to other locations in Canada;
and
2. The Toronto situation was inappropriately generalized in some cases in inter-
national decision making to the whole of Canada, which is the largest country
in the world in area!
Statistics Canada (quoted by Tufts, 2004) reported that during the second quarter
(April–June) at the peak of the crisis, the tourism industry in Canada was affected
in the following ways:
●
International visitors declined 14%.
●
Spending by international visitors declined 13%.
●
The international travel deficit grew to over $1.1 billion.
●
Tourism employment decreased by 2.4% (during a period when seasonal
employment usually increases.
Tourism Security and Safety: From Theory to Practice
146
H7898_Ch08.qxd 8/24/05 8:08 AM Page 146

---

Although the consequences of SARS were far-reaching, no attempt is made in this
chapter to document in detail the impacts of SARS on Toronto. It is concerned
more with the steps that were taken to promote recovery rather than the causes of
the problems. However, it is an artificial distinction, for the two are related.
Obviously, for revival of tourism, it was necessary to assure potential visitors that
the problem had been exaggerated, confined, and, ultimately, resolved.