Canada should clarify duty to citizens abroad

There was a reason Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland showed up at Pearson International Airport last Monday to empathize with Canadians fleeing Hurricane Irma. Just as there was also a reason that, while very sorry for their plight, she deliberately didn’t apologize for the government’s alleged laxness in helping these people get home.

Freeland’s first action was driven by the metaphorical political hurricane that threatened to accompany the returning Canadians. Any perception of indifference to their trauma would be both heartless and stupid.

Yet the website of Global Affairs Canada couldn’t be clearer about such potential perils. It says: “Government of Canada officials abroad cannot … guarantee your safety and security while you are abroad.” Canadians should be prepared for natural disasters (and human ones, such as coups and invasions and crime). The website hosts lots of good information on researching destinations and monitoring conditions on the ground, and also explains how to keep in touch with Global Affairs when travelling (which only about three in 10 Canadians do).

Nonetheless, many travellers don’t realize that their government has no legal obligation to help them if they run into a jam — which is why Freeland wasn’t apologizing for the government’s actions.

Therein, however, lies a dilemma, and one the Liberal government needs to resolve. For while there’s no legislative obligation to help Canadians in trouble abroad —and little by way of international rules to assist — consular officials usually try (often informally) to act.

It’s also not politically expedient for governments to ignore citizens’ expectations of quick help if disaster strikes abroad.

After all, who in this country would not have expected the government to assist our nationals caught in the cataclysmic 2004 Asian tsunami?

Many also remember prime minster Stephen Harper diverting his government plane to Cyprus to help evacuate Canadians from Lebanon amid widespread violence in 2006.

It’s a political imperative to respond to large-scale episodes of Canadians in trouble abroad even if neither international nor national law requires this.

But where our murky policy matters is when the consular emergency in question focuses on smaller groups of people, or on individuals, or on politically awkward episodes.

Past Canadian governments have, for instance, declined to put their full weight behind supporting some imprisoned citizens — say, Omar Khadr during his years of imprisonment at Guantanamo — while moving heaven and earth to help others — say, Brenda Martin, sentenced to jail time in Mexico for fraud in 2008.

Should decisions about consular actions – whom to help and when – be political, at the mercy of public opinion? Absent legislation that requires the federal government to offer the same level of service to all Canadians in distress abroad, this is how help is sometimes apportioned. What happened to “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian,” as Justin Trudeau said during a leaders’ debate.

Many experts, such as former director general of consular affairs Gar Pardy, who wrote a detailed study of the problem earlier this year, think we can do better than decide arbitrarily on aiding Canadians abroad.

And there could be clarity soon: During this session of Parliament, the foreign affairs committee will study our consular setup; the federal auditor general is to report on consular services next spring.

With more Canadians travelling, more devastating climate events worldwide, more dual citizens visiting perilous homelands, we can assume demands for consular assistance will grow. It would be nice if all travellers understood how government assistance abroad worked.

In the meantime, citizen, beware: You’re responsible for your own safety and wellbeing outside our borders. Don’t count on Canada’s government to feed you, airlift you, bail you out or obtain plane tickets home.

It will, however, assure you it feels very, very sorry for your plight.