fly-yul

Ottawa estimates it spent more than $85-million to evacuate about 15,000 of them to Canada, according to an official in Foreign Affairs who gave what was described as an estimate. Reports suggest 7,000 evacuees have since returned to Lebanon.

Who's going to pay the next time a war breaks out and the 7,000 who returned want another get-out-of-a-war-zone-for-free pass?

The government should help Canadian residents while traveling. Not people who have left Canada to live somewhere else.

GUWonder

Some of those "people who have left Canada" and "live somewhere else" bring lots of business Canada's way. Ditch them too?

It doesn't much bother me whatever is done in this regard, because I hope to always have my own arrangements to get out. I also hope not to abandon my fellow citizens "just because _____."

ALW

Many (or some) of those people are also still working for a Canadian employer, I imagine. They've uprooted themselves and their families and this is the thanks they get!?

=aw

LeSabre74

Another stupid idea What about all those Cdns living in Canada who have dual citizenship? Sooner or later someone in Canada's Not-So-New Government will realize there are 4 million of us, don't pi$$ us off.

JackNH

It's a great idea, but it will never happen. In Australia, Howard recently said on the radio that 25% of ALL Austialians have two passports. He had to exacuate over 40,000 of his people from Lebanon.

Moreover, the Israel lobby in the US, Canada and maybe Australia will make sure this never sees the light of day.

DJ Bitterbarn

I had to run this by my brother who works on the hill and (in my opinion) is the more level-headed and informed one of us when it comes to politics. His reply, and I quote directly:

And on the specific topic of removing dual-citizenship:So for the most of us, I'd suspect it's not going to be a big thing. Definitely an issue for some groups, though, but any legislation will take a very long time to go through the channels.

It did scare me a bit, though, now that I'm finally on the way to dual-citizenship, but I think in the long run it's not going to be very sweeping.

gglave

>I suppose if they wanted to go down that path,
>they could tie it to residency (and thus paying taxes):
>not rescue those who've "broken residential ties
>with Canada" so as not to pay taxes.

This makes sense to me. I'm a Canadian citizen, live in Canada and pay Canadian taxes. But I also have UK passport. If something bad happened when I was overseas I would expect Canada to take care of me, not the UK.

>Not sure how that would play in the media (sarcasm)

Not sure what your sarcasm tag means, but it would probably play well. I think most Canadians have no problem with their tax dollars 'rescuing' Canadians on business or vacation, but do have an issue with evacuating 'citizens' who have never lived in Canada and who turn around and immediately go 'home' (i.e. leave Canada) once the dust settles.

Cheers,
Geoff Glave
Vancouver, Canada

ALW

I imagine you'd be taken care of by whichever country issued the passport on which you entered.

As for the sarcasm, I don't think it would play well if the Canadian government was asking Canadian citizens to prove whether they were filing Resident or Non-Resident tax returns for the current year before rescuing them.

=aw

ALW

Is this possible, other than by inheriting the citizenship from your parent?

=aw

GUWonder

Oh my, "think of the children" would then include abandoning Canadian citizens' new-born babies in foreign countries too.

tw1tch

You took that literally. I guess if you pay taxes and you hold a passport, you are a full active citizen, if you don't pay taxes but still hold a passport, you're not an active citizen of Canada, and should not be afforded all the same luxuries as those who are active.

Guava

So those who are too poor to pay any taxes should have their rights and citizenship revoked too?

GUWonder

What's next, tossing young children out with the bathwater? They don't pay taxes but often still hold a passport. There's enough "segmentation" going on, that I don't think we need to start coming up with more artificial categories to impose upon others, especially fellow citizens, such as "first class citizens", "second class citizens", "third class citizens", "untouchables", etc.

Guava

You raised a valid question. However, the answer should not be a dual/multiple citizenship review. I am in favor of a citizenship naturalization review that would require individuals to stay longer in Canada before they are given Canadian citizenship, for example, they must be residents for 10 consecutive years or new citizens must not become non-resident within 5 years of obtaining their Canadian citizenship. Examples like these could reduce those who didn't intend to stay in Canada after they got their citizenship.

Guava

Not just Toronto, Canada is over 85% urban, which takes in approximately 300,000 immigrants per year. Cities like Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver are full of citizens with dual nationalities due to a high percentage of immigrant population. Even sub-urban areas surrounding those cities, notably the 905 belt near Toronto is a very important battleground for the Tories because the 905 region is electable for Harper party, highly populated but with a lot of immigrants too. Harper couldn't be PM today if it weren't for the 905 belt. Even the city of Calgary, a Conservative stronghold, may be at risk because that city is growing so fast with a lot of people coming from elsewhere and therefore, lots of people with non-Alberta centric view. In a way, Calgary has begun to being transformed but should this citizenship review become an election issue, Calgary's large and diverse population may revolt as well. So not only would the Conservatives win nothing on this issue, they risk losing their base as well.