PDF (239 kB, 25 pages)PRB 09-19E
Daphne Keevil Harrold
Social Affairs Division
14 October 2009
PDF (239 kB, 25 pages)
The types of services that the Government of Canada must, by law, offer to Canadian citizens abroad when they find themselves in difficulty, and the types of services that the government should offer to Canadian citizens in these circumstances, have been the subject of significant recent debate.
This paper addresses the policies and legislation governing the services that the Canadian government provides to Canadian citizens abroad, and the rights of Canadian citizens in relation to those services. More specifically, it outlines:
The issuance of a Canadian passport is governed by the Canadian Passport Order (CPO).(1) This is an Order issued by the executive through the Royal Prerogative, which is defined as those powers and privileges derived from the common law that remain in the hands of the executive branch of government.(2) As stated by the Federal Court in Kamel v. Canada (Attorney General):
The source of the law governing the Canadian passport is the royal prerogative, which comes to us from English law. The royal prerogative is exercised today by the Governor in Council, and takes the form of an Order (or décret, in French). The passport is therefore not the subject of any legislation but is governed by an Order, made by the executive.(3)
Accordingly, the CPO was not created by an Act of Parliament, is not subject to parliamentary oversight or review, and can be changed by the Governor in Council when desired by publishing changes directly in the Canada Gazette.(4)
Although the executive has broad discretion in its use of powers under the Royal Prerogative, this discretion can be limited by clear and express statutory provisions.(5) In addition, courts have the jurisdiction to determine the scope and existence of a prerogative power, and can review the exercise of such power where “the rights or legitimate expectations of an individual are affected.”(6) A decision to refuse or revoke a passport through use of the Royal Prerogative directly affects a Canadian’s right to enter the country under s. 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter)(7) and may also affect his or her right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter. As such, executive decisions to refuse to issue a passport to a Canadian citizen, or to revoke a passport previously issued to a citizen, may also be reviewed by Canadian courts on Charter grounds.(8)
In order to apply for a passport, an individual must be a Canadian citizen (CPO, s. 4).(9) Applications must be submitted to Passport Canada (CPO, s. 5). Every passport remains the property of Her Majesty in right of Canada at all times and must be promptly returned to Passport Canada upon request (CPO, s. 3).
Passport Canada may require applicants to provide proof of citizenship through documentation, and is granted broad discretion to “accept or request any other material or any information if Passport Canada is of the opinion that these material or information demonstrates, or help to demonstrate, the identity and Canadian citizenship of the person” (CPO, s. 6).(10)
Passport Canada may refuse to issue, or may revoke, a passport if the applicant fails to complete an application or fails to provide materials required or requested by Passport Canada or the Passport Office (CPO, ss. 9 and 10).
Passport Canada may also refuse to issue a passport, or may revoke it, and/or may ask for further information, material, or declarations respecting the issuance of the passport or delivery of passport services in the following circumstances:
The CPO further provides that Passport Canada may refuse to issue a passport to, or may revoke a passport from, a person who has already been issued a passport that has not expired and has not been revoked (CPO, ss. 9(g) and 10).
In addition, Passport Canada may refuse to issue a passport to, or may revoke a passport from, a person who “is indebted to the Crown for expenses related to repatriation to Canada or for other consular financial assistance provided abroad at his request by the Government of Canada” (CPO, ss. 9(f) and 10).
Other legitimate grounds of refusal or revocation include criminality and national security concerns. For example, Passport Canada may refuse to issue a passport to, or may revoke a passport from, a Canadian who stands charged in Canada with an indictable offence (CPO, ss. 9(b) and 10),(13) or who stands charged outside Canada of an offence which, if committed in Canada, would constitute such an offence. It may also refuse to issue a passport to, or may revoke a passport from, a Canadian subject to a term of imprisonment or subject to conditions on a term of release from prison or parole which do not allow the individual to leave Canada (CPO, ss. 9(d) and 10). In addition, Passport Canada may refuse to issue a passport to, or may revoke a passport from, a Canadian who “is subject to a term of imprisonment outside Canada or is forbidden to leave a foreign state or the territorial jurisdiction of a foreign court by conditions imposed with respect to any custodial release provisions that are comparable [to Canadian parole/terms of release]” (CPO, ss. 9(d.1) and 10). Other grounds for refusal or revocation founded on criminality concerns include the authority to refuse to issue a passport to, or to revoke the passport of, a person who has been convicted of Canadian passport fraud charges under s. 57 of the Criminal Code in Canada or who has a similar conviction overseas related to forging a Canadian passport, using/dealing with/acting on a Canadian passport that he or she knows to be forged, making a false written/oral statement in order to obtain a Canadian passport, or possessing a forged Canadian passport (CPO, ss. 9(e) and 10). Finally, Passport Canada may refuse to issue a passport to someone who is a risk to national security.(14)
If a Canadian is under investigation under s. 10.1 of the CPO due to national security concerns, the Security Bureau of Passport Canada adheres to the following policy and procedures:
- A person whose entitlement is being investigated is formally notified of that fact, is provided with the basis upon which Passport Canada is conducting an investigation and is given 30 days to respond and/or forward relevant information for consideration.
- Once all relevant facts have been gathered(15) and it is anticipated that the matter will be referred to the Minister of Foreign Affairs with a recommendation to refuse or revoke a passport, a first draft recommendation is prepared and provided to the person, who is given 10 days to make an additional submission.
- Where an additional submission is provided, a second draft recommendation is prepared and provided to the person, who is given another 10 days to make a further submission.
- The final recommendation, taking into account any submission or absence thereof, is prepared and forwarded to the Minister by the Director General, Security Bureau, for decision. A copy is provided to the person. Once the Minister makes his or her decision, Passport Canada advises the person in writing of both the decision and the rationale.
- The decision of the Minister is considered final and indicates the duration of withheld passport services, if applicable. Where a person has been refused a passport, or where a passport issued in his or her name has been revoked, a person may contest the decision by filing an application for judicial review before the Federal Court of Canada within 30 days of receipt of the decision.
- At each stage during the investigation, Passport Canada takes into consideration all information and documentation provided by the person and by other sources. If, at any time, Passport Canada considers it no longer appropriate to forward a recommendation to the Minister for decision, the person is formally advised that the investigation has concluded.
- Information reviewed during the investigation may be considered “sensitive” within the meaning of section 38.01 of the Canada Evidence Act and therefore cannot be disclosed. However, Passport Canada will always inform the person that such information exists, and whenever possible, will provide a summary of the information.
- When Passport Canada recommends that the Minister refuse or revoke a passport, the recommendation will propose a period of time not exceeding five years during which no passport shall be issued.
- However, during the period of withheld service, the person may believe that there has been a material change in circumstances since the Minister’s decision or may have a requirement to travel on urgent and compelling compassionate grounds. The person may submit a new passport application, supported by a justification. Passport Canada will review the request to assess the change in circumstances or the urgent and compelling compassionate grounds. A recommendation is then forwarded to the Minister for a decision on whether or not there has been a material change in circumstances or whether to issue a limited validity passport on urgent and compelling compassionate grounds.(16)
If Passport Canada refuses or revokes a passport for reasons other than national security (for example, in cases involving requests that relate to urgent/compassionate/humanitarian situations requiring priority processing, requests for assistance from isolated residents abroad, or documentary evidence of citizenship-related issues), the decision is referred to a Passport Canada Adjudicator who then rules on the applicability of the grounds for the refusal or revocation of the passport under the provisions of the CPO.(17) This adjudication is governed by Rules of Procedure issued by Passport Canada’s Adjudication and Conflict Management Office.(18)
Canadians abroad have access to consular services under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR)(19) in countries that have ratified and respect the treaty. The VCCR contains provisions that outline what types of access consular officers should have to their citizens in foreign countries, and what types of access citizens should have to their nation’s consular officers. Article 36 states:
1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State:
(a) consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State;
(b) (if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this subparagraph;
(c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgement. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action.
2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this article are intended.
In addition, Article 37 requires receiving states to notify a sending state in “cases of deaths, guardianship or trusteeship, wrecks and air accidents.” The Federal Court of Canada has accepted, as part of Canadian law, the International Court of Justice’s decision that the VCCR creates individual rights to consular services.(20)
In an article entitled “Consular and Diplomatic Protection in an Age of Terrorism,” Gar Pardy, former head of Consular Services in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), writes that “more than 170 countries (including Canada) are parties to the VCCR and there are few if any of the remaining non-party countries that do not accept its provisions as the basis for the conduct of consular relations and consular protections.”(21) However, Pardy also states that interpretation and application of the purposes of access (mentioned in Article 36, s. 2) to consular services vary, depending on the “vicissitudes of local officials.”(22)
For example, the United States has been criticized in recent years for failing to respect the provisions of the VCCR. In 2004 the International Court of Justice released a judgment stating the United States had violated the VCCR by failing to provide access to consular services for 52 Mexican nationals on death row in Texas.(23) In 1999 a Canadian convicted of murder, Joseph Stanley Faulder, was executed in Texas despite being denied access to consular services by Texan authorities, in violation of the VCCR.(24)
Canada – like most other countries – is not a party to the accompanying optional protocol to the VCCR called the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes(25) whereby disputes are to be resolved at the International Court of Justice. Accordingly, disputes under the VCCR regarding the level of consular services that Canadian citizens abroad receive from Canadian consular officials, or the level of access that Canadian consular officers are granted to Canadian citizens abroad by foreign authorities, cannot be resolved in an international court. Such disputes can be resolved only through extra-judicial remedies in the field of diplomatic relations – in other words, negotiation between states. International conventions on human rights set clear standards of human rights; however, these treaties offer no practical, direct enforcement mechanisms, and thus offer little direct aid to persons being tortured or beaten while in detention abroad. Moreover, such treaties do not empower consular officials to take action.(26)
Pardy further discusses how Canada denounced the Hague Convention on Conflict of Nationality Laws (CCNL),(27) which states (in Article 4) that “a State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a State whose nationality such person also possesses.”(28) However, “the denouncement of the CCNL did not guarantee consular protection for Canadian nationals in the country in which they hold dual nationality or citizenship, as any number of difficult cases has demonstrated. It does mean, however, that Canada will try and assist in whatever ways may be possible or permitted by the receiving state.”(29) DFAIT warns dual citizens that their country of second citizenship may not recognize their Canadian citizenship and may not recognize Canada’s right to provide the citizen with consular assistance, especially where the individual used his or her non-Canadian passport to enter that country of second citizenship. Dual citizens should also be aware of a number of other legal concerns; for example, the country of second citizenship could require the performance of mandatory military service.(30)
In addition to the VCCR, Canada has signed bilateral consular agreements with China, Egypt and Lebanon(31) which provide dual citizens of Canada and these countries with additional consular rights under treaties. The bilateral agreement between Canada and China, for example, requires the countries to treat dual citizens exclusively as a citizen of their passport of entry; i.e. , if a Chinese-Canadian dual citizen enters China travelling on a Canadian passport, then the Chinese government will treat that individual as a Canadian citizen exclusively.(32) The Canada-China agreement also provides for consular rights to augment the VCCR, including:
In addition, the treaty provides that rights granted in the treaty are not to be restricted by the laws of the receiving state.(34)
The consular rights described in the Canada-China treaty afford nationals of both countries many of the consular access rights that are absent from the VCCR treaty.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has jurisdiction to conduct and manage all consular relations on behalf of Canada under s. 10 of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act (DFAIT Act).(35) The costs of delivering consular services to Canadians outside the country are recovered through fees charged under the Consular Services Fees Regulations; the regulations set a fee of $25 for the issuance of any travel document, including a Canadian passport, a certificate of identity or refugee travel papers.(36)
If a Canadian citizen is detained in a foreign country, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has the discretion under s. 10 of the DFAIT Act to “determine whether and when to request the repatriation of a Canadian citizen detained in a foreign country.”(37)
This legal regime has been the subject of much judicial action in recent years, due to several high-profile cases. A few key judicial decisions have provided some clarification of Canadian’s rights and expectations in these situations.
In one of many different cases involving Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, who is currently imprisoned in the United States detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facing terrorism-related murder charges,(38) the Federal Court of Canada ruled in a 2004 decision that the use of the wording “shall conduct diplomatic and consular relations” creates an obligation on the Minister to carry out these functions, and does not merely empower or allow the Minister to do so.(39)
The Federal Court went on to decide that DFAIT’s A Guide for Canadians Imprisoned Abroad,(40) in combination with s. 10 of the DFAIT Act, create a legitimate expectation that the Minister will provide certain consular services to Canadians detained abroad. Justice von Finckenstein of that court wrote:
It [the departmental publication] asserts that the government will “make every effort to ensure that” a Canadian detained abroad receives “equitable treatment” including ensuring that he or she is not penalized for being a Canadian. In addition, it states:
Consular officials will facilitate communication between you, or someone you designate, and your lawyer.The range of services provided by Canadian consular officials varies from case to case and from country to country. Services appropriate to your case and situation will be discussed with you and/or those you designate. At your request, officials can:
- [n]otify your family or friends of your situation and let them know whether – and how – they can help;
- help you communicate with your representative, family or friends;
- seek to ensure equitable treatment under local laws upon your arrest or detention, consistent with the standards of the host country;
- obtain information about the status of your case and encourage authorities to process the case without undue delay;
- provide you, your representative or family with information on the local judicial and prison systems, approximate times for court action, typical sentences in relation to the alleged offence and bail provisions;
- make every effort to ensure that you receive adequate nutrition, and medical and dental care;
- arrange for the purchase, at your expense and if permitted, of necessary food supplements, essential clothing and other basic items not available through the prison system;
- deliver mail and provide permitted reading material if normal postal services are unavailable;
- convey messages to you if telephone or postal services are unavailable or impractical;
- contact relatives or friends on your behalf and ask them to send you funds as required;
- facilitate the transfer of funds to you if other means are unreliable or unavailable (fees apply);
- and attempt to locate missing personal property.(41)
If the Minister decides to stop providing consular services to a Canadian citizen overseas, a court can review that decision and can order the production of all relevant information that led the Minister to make it, in order to determine whether the decision to withdraw consular services violates the Charter or the individual’s procedural fairness rights.(42)
The actions of the Minister and any officials providing consular services to a Canadian detained abroad are also subject to Charter(43) scrutiny. Section 6 of the Charter provides the following: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada,” subject “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (s. 1). The Federal Court of Canada has ruled that “where a citizen is outside Canada, the Government of Canada has a positive obligation to issue an emergency passport to that citizen to permit him or her to enter Canada; otherwise, the right guaranteed by the Government of Canada in subsection 6(1) of the Charter is illusory.”(44) Accordingly, a citizen cannot be refused entry to Canada unless very important national concerns justify a refusal under s. 1 of the Charter. In order to justify a breach of the Charter under s. 1, the government has the burden of proving its actions were reasonably justifiable in a free and democratic society. In the case of Abdelrazik v. Canada (Foreign Affairs), the government failed to present arguments as to why it was justified in denying Mr. Abdelrazik’s entry into Canada by failing to provide him with a passport for travel. Therefore, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that there was no evidence to support the denial under s. 6(1) of the Charter of this Canadian’s right to enter Canada. The Court ordered the government to issue Mr. Abdelrazik an emergency passport to facilitate his return trip to Montréal.
In addition, the Charter rights guaranteed under ss. 7 and 12 are particularly relevant to a Canadian detained abroad. Those sections state:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. […]
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
If necessary, a detained person can enforce his or her Charter rights through a court challenge to the actions of officials acting on behalf of the Canadian government.(45) (This recourse requires that the detained person have some method of communicating with and/or retaining and paying for a representative in Canada to advance his or her grievance through Canada’s domestic courts.) For example, under s. 7 of the Charter every Canadian has the right to life. Based on this right to life, the Federal Court reviewed a Canadian foreign policy/consular services decision to stop providing assistance to a Canadian citizen facing the death penalty in the United States for a double murder. In that case, the Court ordered the Canadian government to continue providing consular services and to continue to ask for clemency for the convicted Canadian.(46)
Section 7 of the Charter does not create a positive obligation on the government to ensure that Canadians enjoy life, liberty and security of the person – it instead creates an obligation on the government to ensure that its actions do not deprive people of these s. 7 rights.(47) However:
… where Canada’s participation is a necessary precondition for the deprivation and where the deprivation is an entirely foreseeable consequence of Canada’s participation, the government does not avoid the guarantee of fundamental justice merely because the deprivation in question would be effected by someone else’s hand.(48)
It is also important to note that:There is no statute or regulation governing the exercise of the Minister’s mandate under section 10 of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act, or the Minister’s authority to determine whether and when to request the repatriation of a Canadian citizen detained in a foreign country.(49)
In the specific case of Omar Khadr, detained by the United States from the time he was 16 years old (in 2004) until the present, the Federal Court of Appeal determined that the decision of the Canadian government to refuse to repatriate Mr. Khadr was subject to judicial review under the Charter. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the discretionary decision of Justice von Finckenstein of the Federal Court to force the government to ask for Mr. Khadr to be repatriated to Canada, as a remedy for the actions of Canadian officials. The Federal Court of Appeal further determined that Canadian officials breached Mr. Khadr’s s. 7 Charter rights when they provided information to the Americans, whom they knew, or ought to have known, were using torture on Mr. Khadr.(50) However, the government is currently appealing the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in this case to the Supreme Court of Canada. Accordingly, the Supreme Court could overturn the Federal Court of Appeal decision.(51)
The Supreme Court of Canada has also ordered the Crown to provide all relevant documents in its possession to Omar Khadr, in order to aid in his defence against formal criminal charges in the United States, as a remedy for the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Mr. Khadr. The Court determined that Canadian officials had aided in the American detention of Mr. Khadr without due process, in violation of his Charter rights. However, the Court also ordered that before these documents are disclosed to Mr. Khadr, they must be reviewed by a Federal Court judge and redacted and edited in the interests of national security.(52)
DFAIT’s Consular Affairs Bureau provides a number of services to Canadians abroad through 260 offices in over 150 countries; in addition, Australian diplomats offer services to Canadians in some areas.(53) The Bureau also operates a help line for Canadians in distress. The help line is staffed by an experienced consular affairs officer and is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to callers around the world.(54)
The Consular Affairs Bureau’s 2008 publication entitled Who We Are and What We Do lists examples of the services that it does, and does not, provide. Those it provides include the following:
In emergencies
When legal issues arise
When other issues arise
In addition, this publication states that consular officials do not provide the following services:
When legal issues arise
When other issues arise
Canadians are advised to contact the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime Office(57) if they are dissatisfied with the consular services provided to them by Canadian officials abroad.(58) The Ombudsman is required to provide a thorough, impartial, independent review of complaints, to give all parties to a dispute an opportunity to be heard, and to treat all individuals, government departments and agencies fairly, with dignity and respect. He or she has the power to make recommendations to government and report publicly on his or her findings.(59)
Recent cases that have garnered media attention, including that of Suaad Hagi Mohamud,(60) have seen Canadians abroad taking legal action through the Federal Court of Canada and appealing to Canadian journalists in order to receive remedies for grievances regarding inadequate consular services. It is unclear whether these individuals attempted to contact the Ombudsman.(61) This author was unable to find any reported decisions of the Ombudsman regarding consular service provision disputes.
There are also avenues of appeal available to an individual whose passport application has been refused or whose passport has been revoked, or who wishes to complain about the level of service he or she received from Passport Canada once his or her passport has been processed. In such cases, the individual can make a complaint to the Passport Canada Ombudsman, Adjudication and Conflict Management Office, which responds to requests for assistance. In 2007–2008 the Passport Canada Ombudsman was asked to intervene most frequently in the following three scenarios:
It is important to note, however, that concerns have been expressed about the Ombudsman’s lack of perceived independence from DFAIT. Such concerns were also raised in the Ombudsman’s 2007–2008 Annual Report.(63)
The lawyer for the mother of Abdihakim Mohammed, a man with autism whose identity was in question and who wants to return from Kenya to Canada, has told the media that Passport Canada has said there were inconsistencies regarding Mr. Mohammed’s identity, but failed to disclose to the mother’s lawyer what those inconsistencies were.(64) At the time of writing, it was unclear whether Mr. Mohammed’s family had contacted the Passport Canada Ombudsman.
A number of commentators on the rights and services available to Canadians overseas perceive a need for legislation and increased transparency and accountability in order to increase the avenues available to Canadians seeking remedies and redress.
Gar Pardy argues that Canada should establish an independent ombudsman authorized specifically to deal with consular disputes.(65) In his view, if Canadians abroad had recourse to a consular services ombudsman, they might be spared legal battles in court to enforce their rights to services. Delays during court processes can result in Canadians “languishing” abroad for years. Pardy argues that a better system is required as court processes are both cumbersome and expensive. They have become a last resort for Canadians in direct conflict with their government over the provision of consular services abroad.(66)
Pardy additionally argues that new international agreements need to be created for consular and diplomatic protection, as many governments ignore the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,(67) and he argues that the VCCR is both anaemic and insufficient.(68) To remedy the insufficiencies he sees in the VCCR, he calls for a new comprehensive international treaty on consular and diplomatic relations that would:
David Kilgour and Julian Bauer, of the Canadian International Council and Ecoterra respectively, argue that it is “necessary to establish transparent rules and mechanisms to ensure that Canadians can indeed count on their government’s assistance and protection when they travel overseas.”(70) Similarly, Toronto Star political reporter Linda Diebel reports that immigration lawyers urge a solution that would set out “a clear protocol for identifying and protecting citizens.”(71) Gar Pardy and University of Ottawa law and medicine professor Amir Attaran argue that a haphazard judicial erosion of the Royal Prerogative is not acceptable, and have called on Parliament to create a Protection of Canadians Act. They argue that Germany and the United States have passed statutes requiring governments to provide consular services, and that Canada should do the same. In their view, the proposed Act should:
… guarantee consular services for all Canadians, irrespective of background or circumstance. The statute should require consular services to be non-discriminatory; should place a clear, positive duty on consular officers to assist Canadians in distress; should give Canadians denied consular services access to a lawyer and a highly expedited appeal to court; and should permit them in a closed courtroom to see all personal information, including intelligence reports or diplomatic démarches that the government now hides as secret.(72)
Leonard Edwards, DFAIT’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development that officials are very much aware of Canadians’ rights, rules are enforced, and consular services are provided to Canadians in an equal manner.(73) A consular website, travel.gc.ca, provides assistance for Canadians planning trips. The website receives over 12,000 visits daily and offers travel reports for over 200 countries – providing an overview of the security situation in a country, any official advisories against travel to the country or regions of that country, contact information for the nearest Canadian mission, and more. Every new passport includes a copy of Bon Voyage, But, a primer on safe international travel. In addition, a number of other travel safety and health publications are widely available to inform Canadians of the rights and services available to them; on an average day, DFAIT distributes roughly 11,000 safe travel publications.(74) All consular services provided are fully disclosed on the DFAIT website.(75)
John Chant, a professor of economics at Simon Fraser University, writing for the C.D. Howe Institute in 2006, criticized the provision of a wide variety of consular services to all Canadians abroad and suggested that non-resident Canadians, who pay no Canadian taxes, be charged a high passport renewal fee in order to benefit from costly consular service provisions such as mass evacuations of non-resident Canadians from war zones.(76)
Canadians are increasingly travelling internationally; in 2007, they took nearly 50 million international trips, roughly 1.5 international trips per Canadian. An estimated 2.5 million Canadian citizens live overseas. On average, 686 new Canadian consular cases are opened every day, including distress situations such as medical emergencies, arrest and detention, child abduction, child custody issues, and deaths abroad. On average, six Canadians are arrested and two die abroad every day.(77)
Given these statistics, the rights and services available to Canadians abroad is of increasing importance. The dearth of academic scholarship and official debate on the subject suggests a need for much more study and analysis of the issues discussed in this paper.
PDF (39 kB, 6 pages) entered into force on 19 March 1967, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vo1. 596, p. 261. For an overview of the VCCR, see Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo, “The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,” United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, 2008. PDF (553 kB, 6 pages), 2008. PDF (116 kB, 38 pages), November 2008, s. 5.4.2.