I would describe that tax exemption as inefficient to achieve the goal. If the goal was to encourage tourism in Canada, the evidence wasn't there in any strength that the exemption was doing that. In fact, it was a very expensive tax to collect, and it was not claimed by most people who came to Canada.
As well, it was not reciprocal. Canadians do not have a similar benefit when they visit the United States, for example--except, as I recall, in the state of Louisiana, where one can get a reciprocal treatment for consumption tax.
So it was an inefficient tax that was expensive to administer. That does not mean that we ought not to support tourism in Canada, because we do, substantially. And perhaps we should do more.