The Social Contract Between the State and its Citizens

Bon Soir Mes Amies...

I was sitting in a waiting room today and so picked up a staple of doctors' waiting room reading in Canada: Maclean's. One of my personal faves for waiting room reading because not only do the articles vary in length: they can be short (sometimes only a page or two) or, if you're in for the long wait, they can be longer (six to ten pages even); they are current (if you have this week's issue) and they are Canadian.

The editorial this week brought up a thorny issue which I've not only heard discussed much of late, it's also something I've pondered somewhat frequently recently: did Canada have an obligation to rescue (at some risk and a not inconsequential expense) all Canadians from Lebanon and bring them back to Canada safely?

Apparently, the Canadian government promised passage to Canada to anyone holding a valid Canadian passport. This included full-time residents of Canada who were visiting Lebanon (i.e. people who live here and pay taxes here on a regular basis). This also included people who are not residents of Canada and no longer pay taxes here, but maintain a passport (presumably because a Canadian passport is good to have). And this included everyone in between these two states.

So, where do we stand on this one? Typically, in the event of wars, it is a government's responsibility to protect its citizens. (Silly me, it's a government's responsibility to protect its citizens in times of war or peace!) However, how far does that responsibility extend? As the editorial pointed out, Canada does not have a policy to govern these decisions, so we have made these decisions in the past (including this most recent one) on an ad hoc basis. Now that we've made this decision, law and policy following the rules that they usually do, we will probably continue along these lines that we have drawn in the sand: i.e. we have set precedence here and next time, the same will be expected of us. If we do not behave in the same manner (policy or not) that sitting government will be chastised and maligned as being heartless or brutal or some such beastly bureaucratic adjective.

Does that mean then, that we should continue along this same path simply because this is what has been done? Well that would be foolish; lemming-like even. It's possible that this is what will happen, but what should happen?

Some people have suggested that the government should be responsible for all Canadian citizens, regardless of where they currently reside. Others have suggested that we should be responsible only for those of us who are current residents. The editorial in Maclean's mentioned that others have even gone so far as to suggest that people who travel to high risk areas are putting themselves at risk and thus, the government should not be held responsible for the choices that those individuals make.

Currently, this is a very hot topic because of the war going on in Lebanon. Therefore, this is probably not the best time to come up with policy regarding these types of situations. I think it's also somewhat negligent of the government, because this is not the first time in the history of our country that this (sort of thing) has happened. We have been involved in world wars in the past. We have, more recently, had ex-patriates in parts of the world where there was civil unrest, or outright wars between other nations. After those crises were dealt with, we should have come up with policy. That is a responsibility of government. I don't suggest that the policy necessarily need be written in stone or be all-encompassing, but at least some general guidelines should have been sketched in at some point when there was no humanitarian crisis underway.

I mention the social contract in the title because that is precisely the issue at hand: with rights come responsibilities at some expense (whether the expense of some type of freedom, or, in some cases a monetary expense), and how far do those rights extend? Or, put another way, what exactly do you gain by consenting to the social contract? Well, currently, in Canada, once you become a citizen, you can get a passport, then move away, stop paying taxes and being a productive, contributing member of Canadian society, but as long as you maintain your passport, you are entitled to all the privileges and benefits that a resident Canadian taxpayer is. Healthcare is a slightly grey area, but you are essentially entitled to a rescue mission from your home in another country and relocation in Canada if need be. Once relocated in Canada, if you're hurt, you would not be denied medical attention. You are entitled to this even after you stop contributing to Canada in any way. You do not need to pay taxes, nor do you need to vote. You are entitled to other things as well, but for our purposes today, this is what is important.

While I may not hold a very popular view in light of the current situation in the mideast, I think that we need to get our government to come up with a policy which protects our citizens; predominantly the ones who actively participate in the social contract. Taking responsibility for people who do not participate is failing to protect those of us who do participate. We are being exploited by those people who take advantage of the fact that we have no policy and that we have a history of generous social programs.

How do we rectify this? By getting involved. Actively participate in your social contract. Make sure that your MP knows that this issue is important and that we shouldn't let this opportunity slip by again once the media hype moves on to the next big story.

I am not suggesting that we leave people to fend entirely for themselves, but it struck me as somewhat odd that many (perhaps most) of the people that were opting to be evacuated from Lebanon, were residents of Lebanon. These people live there. They were leaving their homes to come to Canada to avoid the war (understandable), but I kept thinking, 'why is this our responsibility?' It's one thing to give aid to foreign countries, especially in times like these, but what I was questioning was the tacit assumption that Canada was responsible for these ex-patriates. Not that we were helping, but that it was an obligation.

For many people, helping others (any others) is an obligation. I don't disagree: I think it's a moral imperative. But not all people all the time. I think the murkiest problem with this situation is that there are no official guidelines as to what the government's obligations are. People here don't know how far our rights extend, and people who leave here but maintain their passports do so with some degree of expectation of benefits. Unless and until those benefits are defined, there will always be confusion on this point.

That's all I have for now kids. Peace out,