conflict
As war looms in Lebanon, will Canada be forced once again to evacuate “citizens of convenience?”: J.L. Granatstein for Inside Policy
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ce7d3/ce7d3b2d656ac58ee33447d6880cc3e0c177ee6c" alt=""
From the Macdonald Laurier Institute
By J.L. Granatstein for Inside Policy
It is too late to interfere with the pending evacuation from Lebanon, but we must consider what rights citizens living abroad in perpetuity can have.
Canada is preparing to evacuate Canadian citizens from Lebanon in case the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the well-armed, Iranian-backed terrorist organization, escalates into a full-blown war. Most of Lebanon’s southern border towns have been evacuated as have the kibbutzim and villages of Israel’s north. There are estimates that as many as 75,000 Canadian citizens may be living in or visiting Lebanon.
There is a precedent for an evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon. In 2006, Hezbollah and Israel engaged in a 34-day war that killed some 1,300 Lebanese and 165 Israelis and displaced 1.5 million residents of the two countries. The war ended after Lebanon, Israel, and Hezbollah accepted United Nations Security Council resolution 1701, which called for, among other things, an immediate ceasefire, and the withdrawal of all combatants from southern Lebanon.
There were as many as 50,000 Canadians in Lebanon at the time and Canada moved to get as many of its citizens it could reach – and who wanted to be evacuated – out to Cyprus or Turkey and on to Canada. Some 14,000 were evacuated by air or by sea at a cost that was later reported to be $94 million.
Almost no one asked in 2006 what were the obligations of the Canadian government to citizens living abroad. Many of these citizens had lived in Lebanon for decades, their only link to Canada being their passport. Consider Rasha Solti, who wrote in the Globe and Mail on July 22, 2006: “I hold a Canadian passport, I was born in Toronto when my parents were students there. I have never gone back. I left at age 2.” Solti’s passport was her escape route to Canada if she ever needed it. Did Canada owe her and others like her anything? And while there are no hard numbers, as many as 7,000 of the evacuees reportedly returned to Lebanon after the cessation of fighting.
Obviously, the government has some responsibility to assist Canadians caught up in a conflict. But what about citizens of convenience – those who renew their Canadian passports every five or ten years without visiting, let alone living, in Canada? What duty does Canada have to help Canadian passport holders who have not resided in or paid taxes to Canada for decades – if ever?
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade studied the 2006 evacuation and its report in May 2007 touched on this issue. A Department of Foreign Affairs official responsible for consular affairs told the Committee that “Until further notice, within the framework of the consular service, a Canadian is a Canadian; the rule is very clear. However, you are right, the debate has been launched and the discussion will take place.”
Well, no real public discussion took place. There were, however, conversations within the federal government, and the nation’s Citizenship Act has been amended several times since 2006. But there are still no residency requirements to remain a citizen. Should there be?
An amendment in 2009 instituted the “first generation limitation” that restricted the scope of those eligible for Canadian citizenship for the future. Citizenship by descent would henceforth be limited to one generation born outside Canada. This law was subsequently deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Superior Court in December 2023, and the government now has a bill before Parliament that will grant citizenship to eligible foreign nationals whose parent(s) have a substantial connection to Canada and are impacted by the first generation limitation.
In other words – unless the courts subsequently define “a substantial connection” very narrowly – Canadian citizenship can be passed on for generations to those living abroad.
This summer Ottawa is again preparing to evacuate Canadians from Lebanon. The government has bolstered its embassy staff in Beirut and deployed Canadian Armed Forces personnel to Cyprus where they are working with allied nations to coordinate evacuation planning. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Global Affairs Canada, and the Canadian Embassy in Beirut have all urged Canadians to leave at once. It’s unknown how many people have taken this advice, but clearly Canada is preparing for a major evacuation if the fighting escalates.
Is it not long past time for Canada to consider what rights are appropriate for those who choose to live abroad? Many permanent residents living outside Canada, as in Lebanon, hold dual citizenship. Should they require genuine ties in or to our country to retain their citizenship and their passports?
Before 1977, Canadians who acquired another nation’s citizenship, except by marriage, lost their Canadian status. Until 1973, Canada required those who wanted its citizenship to renounce their former allegiance. A 1993 parliamentary committee questioned the meaning of loyalty when people held dual citizenship, and it suggested that this devalued the meaning of Canadian citizenship. The committee, in fact, recommended that a Canadian who voluntarily acquired another citizenship should cease to be a Canadian. What the courts might to say to efforts to implement such measures today is unknown.
Still, the Foreign Affairs official in 2006 was correct: A Canadian is a Canadian. But perhaps there is another way to limit the use of our passports as a public convenience. In the United States, all Americans, no matter where they live or how many passports they carry, must file an income tax return as a fundamental continuing obligation of citizenship. Essentially, the US says that those who want to enjoy the benefits of citizenship must help to pay the costs of running the government, and those who don’t want to pay must renounce their American citizenship. This applies to Americans living in Canada.
Washington’s regulation is both reasonable and right. Holding a US passport carries certain obligations. We need to find ways to impose similar obligations on Canadian passport holders living abroad.
In Yann Martel’s famous phrase, Canada is the greatest hotel on earth. He meant that as praise, but to many it has come to imply that they can enjoy the benefits of this country without sharing in the duties and obligations of citizenship. In other words, you can check in, enjoy the facilities, and then check out without paying the bill.
It is too late to interfere with the pending evacuation from Lebanon. But now it is time to consider what rights citizens living abroad in perpetuity can have. It’s time to fully examine whether dual (or triple or multiple) passport holders can remain Canadian citizens. Time at last for a hard look at what Canadian citizenship means in the 21st century.
J.L. Granatstein taught Canadian history for 30 years and was director and CEO of the Canadian War Museum. He sits on the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s Research Advisory Board.
conflict
Europe’s Heads of State Have Learned Nothing from 170 years of history
By John Leake
With the exception of Viktor Orban, Europe’s so-called leaders have a learning disability of miraculous proportions.
While the Congress of Vienna (1815) seemed to inaugurate a new era of hope for peace in Europe, Europe’s leaders couldn’t resist the siren song of bloodyminded pigheadedness that drew them into the Crimean War (1853-1856) in which Britain and France thought it more sensible to side with the Ottoman Turks than with Russia over various religious and territorial disputes in the Black Sea that are now too tedious to recount.
The only redemptive feature of the Crimean War—at least on the British side—is that members of the ruling class that wanted the war were willing to serve on the front line of it. Lieutenant-General James Thomas Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan, was notorious for his aristocratic haughtiness and extravagance. He also achieved legendary status for leading the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Battle of Balaclava, immortalized in Tennyson’s poem.
Watching Cardigan charge directly into a Russian battery, the French commander, Pierre Bosquet remarked: “C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre: c’est de la folie (“It is magnificent, but it is not war: it is madness.”).
After the British and French backed the Ottomans against the Russians in the Crimean War, they backed the Russians against the Germans, Austrians, and Ottomans during the Great War of 1914-1918. When it came to drafting the Treaty of Versailles, the Allies were more interested in ascribing blame to the Germans than in making a lasting peace. This led to World War II, when British and the French backed the Russians once again against the Germans and the Austrians—this time with the Turks joining their side.
After World War II, the Americans thought it more important to create a lasting peace than to punish Germany again, so they chose the Marshall Plan instead of the punitive Morganthau Plan.
At the war’s conclusion, erstwhile allies U.S. and Russia, became mortal enemies in a Cold War in which they threatened each other with nuclear annihilation. At the conclusion of the Cold War, Washington decided to revert to the spirit of the Treaty of Versailles to kick Russia while it was down and to maintain a state of enmity with it instead of taking pains to incorporate it into the West.
In its great sagacity, the Trump administration has recognized that there is nothing to be gained for the American people by continuing the U.S. proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Trump and his people recognize the reality that it would be far better to have a mutually respectful and beneficial relationship with Russia than to continue threatening it and maintaining a state of enmity with it.
Trump starkly contrasts with Europe’s so-called leaders, who wish to keep the Great Game pissing contest with Russia going. Like 15-year-old female rivals on a high school cheerleading squad, they find it more important to ascribe blame in the West’s longstanding conflict with Russia than to find a peaceful solution to it. All the phony expressions of solicitude for the people of Ukraine are pure humbug. Europe’s so-called leaders are perfectly happy to continue sending young Ukrainian men to their deaths and they will work hard to undermine Trump’s efforts to end the killing.
I would wager a large sum that not a single European head of state with the exception of Viktor Orban could—without referring to an Encyclopedia—provide an account of the various disputes, touchy matters of honor, and attributions of blame that were the casus belli of the Crimean War, the Franco-Prussian War, the First World War, or the Second World War. They are ignorant, childish brats who have learned nothing from European history.
I never thought I would say that President Trump must have the patience of a saint to suffer Europe’s irritating parcel of whiny, mercenary, and malevolent wimps.
Subscribe to FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse).
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
conflict
Trump meets Macron at White House, says Ukraine war ending soon
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a96c0/a96c0365c975aa34b87fec4f292fb2f813b205f3" alt=""
MxM News
Quick Hit:
President Donald Trump met with French President Emmanuel Macron at the White House on Monday to discuss Ukraine and broader economic partnerships. The meeting, which followed a virtual G7 summit, saw Trump reiterate his long-standing claim that the war “would have never started if I was President.”
Key Details:
-
Trump and Macron participated in a virtual G7 meeting earlier in the day, hosted by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, marking the third anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war.
-
Trump emphasized a forthcoming “Critical Minerals and Rare-Earths Deal” with Ukraine, describing it as an “Economic Partnership” that would allow the U.S. to recoup the “Tens of Billions of Dollars and Military Equipment sent to Ukraine.”
-
The President also revealed he is engaged in ongoing discussions with Vladimir Putin regarding a potential resolution to the war, as well as major economic agreements between the U.S. and Russia.
Diving Deeper:
On Monday, President Donald Trump welcomed French President Emmanuel Macron to the White House for high-level discussions on Ukraine, economic development, and transatlantic relations. The meeting followed a virtual G7 summit, where world leaders marked three years since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war—a conflict Trump once again declared “would have never started if I was President.”
In a Truth Social post, Trump provided a summary of the day, revealing that the leaders reaffirmed their shared goal of ending the war while emphasizing economic cooperation between the U.S. and Ukraine. The President highlighted a forthcoming “Critical Minerals and Rare-Earths Deal” aimed at strengthening Ukraine’s economy while ensuring American taxpayers recoup some of the massive financial aid and military equipment previously sent to Kyiv.
“This deal, which is an ‘Economic Partnership,’ will ensure the American people recoup the Tens of Billions of Dollars and Military Equipment sent to Ukraine, while also helping Ukraine’s economy grow as this Brutal and Savage War comes to an end,” Trump wrote.
Beyond his discussions with Macron, Trump disclosed that he is in “serious discussions” with Russian President Vladimir Putin, stating that negotiations are underway to end the war and facilitate economic agreements between the U.S. and Russia. “Talks are proceeding very well!” he added.
Trump’s meeting with Macron comes amid heightened uncertainty surrounding Ukraine’s future leadership and the broader trajectory of Western involvement in the war. Over the weekend, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky suggested he would be willing to step down in exchange for a peace settlement or NATO membership for his country.
Meanwhile, European leaders, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, have stressed the importance of a united front against Russia. A Downing Street statement reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to supporting Ukraine “for as long as needed,” with Starmer and Macron set to continue discussions on the issue in Washington this week.
Trump’s direct engagement in diplomatic talks with Putin—without Kyiv’s participation—marks a sharp departure from the Biden administration’s approach. While Biden and European allies have focused on military aid and long-term deterrence, Trump has repeatedly asserted that he alone can bring an end to the war swiftly. His latest comments suggest that he is actively working to shape the future of U.S.-Russia relations, even as Ukraine’s political landscape remains in flux.
With economic concerns looming large and global security interests at stake, Trump’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine war and transatlantic partnerships will likely remain a focal point in the months ahead.
-
Business2 days ago
Trump declares he will impose tariffs on Europe, says EU was formed to cheat America
-
Crime2 days ago
Could the UK’s ‘Grooming Gangs’ operate in Canada?
-
Alberta23 hours ago
Provincial Budget 2025: Meeting the challenge
-
Alberta2 days ago
Can Trump Revive The Keystone Pipeline?
-
Alberta23 hours ago
Alberta Budget 2025: Health and education
-
Alberta23 hours ago
Alberta 2025 Budget Review from the Alberta Institute
-
Business1 day ago
Trump Admin investigates Biden-era decision to kill 100 million chickens over bird flu
-
DEI2 days ago
Tulsi Gabbard fires 100+ NSA officials involved in sexually graphic secret group chat