Canadian Foreign Policy & Affairs II

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Why would they? They know the government will evacuate them at taxpayers' expense.

Nothing stopping the government from pursuing cost recovery.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

She was a teenager. I’d bet my pension she had no clue as to the economy of Canada

Probably. But I guess we can hope she at least has a study spot for Canada. This is probably more of a real life experience with Canada than any POTUS. That can't be a bad thing.

And not just Canada. Specifically Quebec. I'd say that's gotta be a unique impact.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nothing stopping the government from pursuing cost recovery.

Could you imagine all the media sob stories about 4 or 5 figure bills being sent to little Lebanese grandmas? The last Lebanon evacuation was $6000 per person in 2006 dollars.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Could you imagine all the media sob stories about 4 or 5 figure bills being sent to little Lebanese grandmas? The last Lebanon evacuation was $6000 per person in 2006 dollars.

And we should do it, to dissuade further abuse.

In 2006, it really was a new and unique situation and both the government and society were unprepared for both the situation and debate around it. Not so this time.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And we should do it, to dissuade further abuse.

In 2006, it really was a new and unique situation and both the government and society were unprepared for both the situation and debate around it. Not so this time.

I don't disagree with you, but I think no government has the courage to stand up to the media circus that would surround a full cost recovery evacuation.

[casper]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Why would they? They know the government will evacuate them at taxpayers' expense.

After seeing what has happen to the Palestinians, not certain I would want to be in an neighboring country to Israel. Especially one that tolerates terrorists.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Could you imagine all the media sob stories about 4 or 5 figure bills being sent to little Lebanese grandmas? The last Lebanon evacuation was $6000 per person in 2006 dollars.

Well $6,000 sounds expensive. But I guess flying an aircraft into/out of a war zone is not cheap.

I don't think the government gives away free flights like that anymore. From COVID onwards they started to charge some nominal amount. Even if its only a $1,000. That should be enough to create a disincentive to abuse the offer.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

After seeing what has happen to the Palestinians, not certain I would want to be in an neighboring country to Israel. Especially one that tolerates terrorists.



Well $6,000 sounds expensive. But I guess flying an aircraft into/out of a war zone is not cheap.

I don't think the government gives away free flights like that anymore. From COVID onwards they started to charge some nominal amount. Even if its only a $1,000. That should be enough to create a disincentive to abuse the offer.

How is that a disincentive? That is what a flight would cost anyway.

Option 1 - Wait it out, if things get bad make a fuss on Tik Tok about the meanies in the federal government not rescuing you. Cost $1000

Option 2 - Evacuate now. Cost $1000, plus the cost of accommodation in Canada.

[casper]

Originally Posted by acottawa

How is that a disincentive? That is what a flight would cost anyway.

Option 1 - Wait it out, if things get bad make a fuss on Tik Tok about the meanies in the federal government not rescuing you. Cost $1000

Option 2 - Evacuate now. Cost $1000, plus the cost of accommodation in Canada.

I don't think the government should be evacuating anyone while flights are available from commercial operators.

If the government steps in to run flights it should because the commercial operators can't for one reason or another. They should charge something reasonable.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't disagree with you, but I think no government has the courage to stand up to the media circus that would surround a full cost recovery evacuation.

Actually I think Poilievre just might. If you run on cutting government spending it isn't hard to paint people who continually return to a dangerous part of the world and expect to be rescued as freeloaders.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't disagree with you, but I think no government has the courage to stand up to the media circus that would surround a full cost recovery evacuation.

I honestly think there would be a lot less public sympathy this time. Because it's the second time in 20 years. The bigger question is how many of these folks actually have assets in Canada the government can seize.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I honestly think there would be a lot less public sympathy this time. Because it's the second time in 20 years. The bigger question is how many of these folks actually have assets in Canada the government can seize.

Those Folks probably have their assets in Cyprus which is as far as any Canadian government should evacuate said citizens. Safe and warm and out of danger.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Those Folks probably have their assets in Cyprus which is as far as any Canadian government should evacuate said citizens. Safe and warm and out of danger.

The evacuation flights last year out of Israel/Beirut were mostly to Cairo. Air Canada then offering onward connecting flights back to Canada.

CBC Reporting from last year

Canada ends evacuation flights out of Israel and turns attention to possible Lebanon rescue - Oct 23, 2023
There's now a standing rapid deployment team (SRDT) that be can be quickly deployed to help with evacuation efforts, he said.

The government also built an emergency operations centre in Ottawa.

Louis de Lorimier, Canada's ambassador to Lebanon during the 2006 evacuation, said the former Conservative government decided to wave all of the costs associated with the rescue.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...tion-1.7005174

The government today is better prepared than it was back in 2006. They also acted sooner. They have been telling Canadian it is time to leave Lebanon for the past year.

I think it is far to ask people to pay something that is at least equivalent to commercial airfare.

The conservatives were far more willing to cover the cost last time. This time is different.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Those Folks probably have their assets in Cyprus which is as far as any Canadian government should evacuate said citizens. Safe and warm and out of danger.

Canada can't evacuate its citizens and dump them on a third country.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

The government today is better prepared than it was back in 2006. They also acted sooner. They have been telling Canadian it is time to leave Lebanon for the past year.

I think it is far to ask people to pay something that is at least equivalent to commercial airfare.

The conservatives were far more willing to cover the cost last time. This time is different.

As I noted in my earlier post, if the only cost of a GAC and/or military-facilitated evacuation is a commercial flight then they have little incentive to evacuate early and pay the extra cost of accommodation in Canada (or elsewhere). The extra costs of waiting are entirely borne by taxpayers.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Canada can't evacuate its citizens and dump them on a third country.

Cyprus is in Schengen. Canadian citizens would normally be allowed to stay there for 90 days.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Canada can't evacuate its citizens and dump them on a third country.

Thats where most of them were dumped the first time it happened. By Ship.

[lio45]

I think if it were up to me, only legitimate tourists would be evacuated. The list for evacuation would be based on your recent passport activity + history of recent Canadian taxpaying.

The people would actually live there would not be eligible. Why should they? They should be treated like normal refugees, i.e. I'm not saying no to taking them in, but they'd be in a different category than a Canadian tourist that ends up trapped in a war zone. Any Canadians of Convenience who have been living in Lebanon full-time are of course welcome to come here ASAP and stay here, but they should do that on their own dime.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Canada can't evacuate its citizens and dump them on a third country.

Why not, Cyprus has plenty of tourist infrastructure and functioning airports.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lio45

I think if it were up to me, only legitimate tourists would be evacuated. The list for evacuation would be based on your recent passport activity + history of recent Canadian taxpaying.

The people would actually live there would not be eligible. Why should they? They should be treated like normal refugees, i.e. I'm not saying no to taking them in, but they'd be in a different category than a Canadian tourist that ends up trapped in a war zone. Any Canadians of Convenience who have been living in Lebanon full-time are of course welcome to come here ASAP and stay here, but they should do that on their own dime.

I think that would be a good policy for natural disasters or something that can’t be predicted, but I don’t think when the official travel advisory is “ Lebanon - AVOID ALL TRAVEL” that there are any tourists who should get a subsidized evacuation.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think that would be a good policy for natural disasters or something that can’t be predicted, but I don’t think when the official travel advisory is “ Lebanon - AVOID ALL TRAVEL” that there are any tourists who should get a subsidized evacuation.

Good point. I agree then, no one should get evacuated from there by the taxpayers. If you're there and want to get out now, do that yourself.