Most Canadians say citizens who stay in high-risk conflict zones don’t deserve government protection: poll

As Ottawa continues to airlift hundreds of Canadians out of Lebanon this weekend, a new Leger survey shows slightly more than half of Canadians (52 per cent) think Canada does not owe protection to citizens who decide to stay in conflict zones despite warnings to leave.

According to the survey, only a third (34 per cent) think the federal government has a responsibility to protect and evacuate its citizens.

“The half-empty evacuation flights certainly underscores why the government is being so aggressive in communicating the need to leave now on available commercial flights, says Andrew Enns, executive vice-president at Leger. “As for the poll, those results may come into play should commercial evacuation options cease to be variable and the government has to orchestrate a more deliberate evacuation at their own expense.”

“Based on the results, there may be some pushback to this in the general public,” he added.

Nearly 900 more reserved seats are spread out across one flight per day between Friday and Sunday. Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly continues to urge Canadians to take advantage of the available seats.

About 650 seats were reserved on two flights from Beirut to Istanbul on Thursday, but Global Affairs Canada said those flights left with only 275 passengers. More than 340 Canadians left on government-reserved flights earlier in the week.

Canada conducted a similar airlift two decades ago, during a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel in July of 2006. At the time, Ottawa estimated it spent more than $85 million to evacuate about 15,000 people to Canada. Reports suggested 7,000 evacuees returned to Lebanon by September.

These efforts have given rise to debate about whether Canadians who stay in high-risk conflict zones should receive the protection of the federal government. That includes evacuation.

Opinions varied widely among younger and older Canadian with 49 per cent of those ages 18-24 saying Canada has a responsibility to protect its citizens in conflict zones. But 70 per cent of people 55 and over said the country doesn’t owe them any protection.

“I suspect older Canadians may be drawing on past examples of situations where the Canadian government warned people to leave but people didn’t leave and ultimately the government was forced to arrange special transportation to evacuate citizens,” said Enns. “Older Canadians may be thinking ‘We’ve seen this picture before, and we know how it ends.’”

Along gender lines, 37 per cent of men said Canada has a protective duty versus 30 per cent of women. The sexes were almost evenly split in votes against providing protection: 53 per cent of men and 51 per cent of women.

Residents of most provinces sat between about 30 and 40 per cent as being ‘for’ protection and about 50 per cent ‘against’. The biggest contrast was in Manitoba and Saskatchewan where 65 per cent were decidedly against providing protection and a mere 18 per cent were for it.

There was little difference among urban, suburban and rural area dwellers. Around 50 per cent in each category were against and approximately 30 per cent were for.

The respondents’ political persuasion affected how people saw this issue. Left-leaning parties, the NDP and Green Party, had the most support within their ranks for Canada protecting its citizens in conflict zones: 48 per cent, NDP; 49 per cent of Greens.

The widest gulf was among Conservatives. Of those who vote Tory, 64 per cent were against and just 24 per cent were for. The two views were more evenly split among Liberals, where 41 per cent thought protection should be provided and 54 per cent said no.

This was an online survey of 1,626 respondents 18 years of age or older with a margin of error no greater than plus or minus 2.43 per cent, (19 times out of 20).

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.