Almost every major international crisis results in requests for the federal government to rescue Canadians caught up in it. Debate inevitably follows.

The Israel-Hamas War was barely 24 hours old when social media erupted with criticism of Canada’s embassy in Tel Aviv; even the practice of routing calls to the Watch Office in Ottawa for efficiency turned into “evidence” of indifference. Others argue that travelers and long-term expats make their own beds when they leave Canada, and that taxpayers’ dollars are better spent at home.

Not surprisingly, each evacuation decision turns political.

Since war erupted on Feb. 28, over 4,000 Canadians, stranded in countries once considered stable and safe, have requested assisted departure from Global Affairs Canada (GAC) as a result of retaliatory bombing campaigns by Iran. Airspaces are either closed entirely, or have severely reduced commercial flight options. More than 110,000 Canadians are registered with GAC in the region, and requests could well go up.

A friend of mine was stuck in Qatar for a week, thanks to a spectacularly ill-timed transit stop. She made it to Riyadh—the nearest place with commercial flight options—via overland transport organized by GAC, and is now back home. 

My friend—like me, a retired public servant—is most grateful for the assistance received and understands the logistical challenges and risks involved. But she did ask me two pointed questions: Why did the United Kingdom and France seem to be days ahead of Canada in planning overland evacuation trips from Doha? 

Indeed, some of our allies get out of the starting gates a lot faster, not only creating pressure on Canada to act, but also usurping local transport resources and leaving others scrambling for the leftovers. 

So, is there anything Canada could do better?

First, some facts. Mass evacuations present a unique challenge for this country, given how far removed we are from most of the world’s crisis spots. They also differ in security circumstances and numbers affected. 

Some examples, using numbers based on official documents and releases, of people GAC helped evacuate:

• 2006 Lebanon (war): 14,000
• 2010 Haiti (earthquake): 4,600
• 2020 Worldwide COVID-19 crisis (pandemic): 62,500
• 2021 Afghanistan (war): 3,700
• 2023 Sudan (civil unrest): 550
• 2023 Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip (war): 1,730
• 2026 Middle East, Iran, and Gulf states (war): more than 4,300 to date, with some able to leave unassisted.

In each case, extraction depends on a number of variables, all of which are outside Canada’s control:

Local conditions: risk factors on the ground, openness of air space, condition of airports and ports; 

Host government co-operation: overflight and landing/docking rights, particularly for military vessels; fragmentation of authorities); and

Logistical considerations: geographical dispersion of evacuees, safety and distances of escape routes, availability of transportation.

All these factors mean that each crisis requires its own tailored response. But should it really be necessary to reinvent the entire wheel, each and every time? No. Because there are things that are in Canada’s control: decision-making processes and co-ordination at home. 

As a retired GAC lawyer who has worked extensively with the Consular Branch, including during crisis responses, I can attest to the enormous professionalism, empathy, and dedication my former colleagues bring to their work. But evacuations also involve National Defence, Immigration, Public Safety, and central agencies—all with their own statutory authorities and financial constraints. Players around the table are rarely the same. Without a clear and consistent framework, let alone a readily available funding mechanism, critical time is often wasted in re-negotiating fundamentals. Political considerations and public debates draw valuable resources and tend not to be helpful. 

The result? Delays and inconsistent decision-making, leaving affected Canadians wondering why what was done in the last evacuation isn’t being done for them now. Claims of arbitrariness (or worse, discrimination) and indifference, frustration, and remonstrations follow. Meanwhile, calls for large-scale evacuations are increasing thanks to surging conflicts, climate-change-driven extreme weather events, growing numbers of Canadians travelling or living abroad, and heightened public expectations. 

Legislative fixes are out. Parliament cannot mandate the government to take measures beyond its power to deliver—whether due to their extra-territorial nature, collisions with foreign states’ sovereignty, or factors beyond its control. These are practical and legal reasons why consular services abroad remain discretionary, and subject to the Crown prerogative on foreign relations. But we can take steps to eliminate internal bureaucratic hurdles, including over sources of funding, which would allow Consular teams to focus on situational considerations, logistics, and options. 

Here, then, is a modest proposal, informed by the practice of like-minded states, that would streamline internal processes and clarify both expectations and limitations:

1. Create a clear, transparent, and public framework, by way of a non-legislative statutory instrument similar to the Passport Order, that would:
   • Expressly preserve the Crown Prerogative and note the limitations of Canadian government action abroad; 
   • Remind Canadians that they travel and live abroad at their own risk;
   • Empower the minister of Foreign Affairs to declare a situation to be a “large-scale emergency”, unlocking relevant protocols and authorities, based on a non-exclusive list criteria;
   • Clarify departmental roles, including with regard to emergency authorities, processes, waivers, or delegations;
   • Determine eligibility evacuation (e.g., Canadian nationals, permanent residents, and immediate family members; nationals of a state for whom Canada acts as Protecting Power; persons in danger of persecution as a result of service to Canada);
   • Set out factors and guardrails for decision-making;
   • Specify responsibilities of evacuees, including cost recovery and availing of commercial options when available; and
   • Clarify access to the Distressed Canadian Fund to help with expenses. 
2. Create a permanent “large-scale crisis fund”, accessible to all participating departments, to be unlocked by the minister’s declaration;
3. Make necessary legislative changes to allow for temporary waiver of statutory requirements in declared emergencies (e.g. documentation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or procurement decisions/processes).

Canadians in crisis deserve efficient responses from their government. But travellers and expats would benefit from a clearer understanding of what is possible on foreign soil, while government officials deserve a framework that does not unnecessarily hamstring their efforts. And no one deserves to be made the subject of a tug-of-war in the middle of a crisis.

Sabine Nölke is a retired Canadian ambassador and practitioner of international law.

The Hill Times

The post How Canada can streamline large-scale emergency responses appeared first on The Hill Times.

Source link