Enjoy (if you can read it).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scale-back-aid-for-dual-citizens-bureaucrats-advise-ottawa/article16320487/ - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scale-back-aid-for-dual-citizens-bureaucrats-advise-ottawa/article16320487/

I got the info from One of those PRs who used to frequent this site, he returned back to sell his house and business and the events broke.

Canada already recognizes dual citizenship.. The issue is that with some countries lime China or Russia, if you hold their citizenship you are obliged by law to enter the country using their passport.. This to hold you liable from legal perspective.. 

I hold dual citizenship from birth and it is like changing hats, I become a citizen of the country's passport I use to get into a destination country and I know that my other country will not assist me..

Same Canada wants to introduce this way of diffirentiation.. If you enter a country not using the Canadian passport, you are not Canadian for the time being from legal point of view to the host as the law does not diffirentiate/take into consideration as dual citizenship at one point of time.. If you buy a house you are buying it using one ID -->one citizenship.. Complex concept to some but easy.. 

In other words there is no grey in this kind of law.. Either white or black..

They will not issue you a visa on the Canadian passport if you are chinese.. You enter the country on the canadian passport but on the basis that you are chinese, in this case you are chinese and the passport is simply a travel document used for entry considered by China.Same case in other countries... Add to it that China does not recognise dual citizenships.. This creates and created lots of issues between Canada and various countries like a few years back with Iran..

I wanted to point that Canada recognizes dual citizenship, to the contrary of your post.. More info here:

http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/publications/dual-citizenship#disadvantages

The truth is, Canada's approach to immigration is based purely on economics, as is immigration policy of almost every country, but Canada is unique, and here's how. 

First, let's review the facts:

- population around 34.5 million

- 2nd largest land mass, most of which is not livable, hence the majority of citizens living within a certain proximity to the country's southern border with the United States

- nearly 48% of the population are dependent on the other 52% to generate tax revenues and thus to support social and welfare programs. Our labour force is around 18 million, which is smaller than populations of California, New York, Florida or Texas. 

- Canada's GDP is #13th, which means that if you reshuffled G8 memberships purely on the basis of the GDP Brazil, China, India, South Korea and Mexico would all come ahead of Canada and Canada won't make the group.

When you compare these stats to our neighbour south of the border (which is the most common comparison), Canada is not in an easy position economically and must solve several key problems:

- how do you keep the economy growing, while doing so with only 18 million working adults?

- how do you sustain federal powers, provincial and federal services on a shoe-string budget and with a geopolitical configuration that effectively makes you the 5th most populous state in North America, yet without the workforce mobility and economies of scale that individual US states (and their residents) enjoy?

So this is where immigration and national policies come together. Canada must maintain its political sovereignty and relative economic independence (though a very close relationship with US is key to its survival since it gives Canada a strong trade partner and eliminates the need for Canada to have a fully developed military force), and therefore is very protectionist in its domestic economic policies. Look at how some of the largest industries are regulated, such as wireless, and you'll understand that anti-competitive isolationism is required, otherwise Canadian consumers would easily favour US providers. 

Getting back to the point of immigration, Canada has a delicate balancing act to perform - expand the economy, yet sustain what is already in place economically. Investing into growth sounds great, but means that you also need a good deal of lower- and mid-level professionals to fill newly created jobs, which would take away from existing positions and create a labour shortage, leading to an economic collapse. This is why entrepreneurs don't come to Canada and go to the US. It's simply not economically viable to open shop in Canada - our market is smaller, the actual number of consumers is smaller, our regulations (at times) greater, and labour force pretty thinly spread. So, when an entrepreneur arrives on Canada's shores he realizes that a) there is no venture capital/private equity/lending culture to support aggressive growth (this is a result of the smaller economy) and b) that there is no talent relative to other locations, like UK and US. When an immigrant arrives in Canada, (s)he realizes that the job market is dismal, the number of spots is highly limited, particularly as one's seniority and experience rise, the economic growth is essentially stalled and they must start several notches down from their level of expertise and experience to make ends meet. 

As such, Canada is focusing - in practice - on attracting skilled workers (mostly blue-collar, or at the very least non-white-collar, if you look at the list of occupations admitted under the program) who would get here and are sure to stay, rather than white collar immigrants that seek, first and foremost, professional growth, diverse economy and economic mobility. And this is OK. This is what Canada's economy needs - or rather what its politicians need. Of course the most radical solution (and one that seriously has been advocated by a number of leading Canadian thinkers) is that Canada should fully integrate with the US, creating complete capital and talent mobility and giving the US access to its natural resources, which would attract labour to Canada, allow Canadian economy to diversify and be a win-win. This is as likely as Stephen Harper joining the NDP. If other countries, like the US, encourage internationalization of their immigrants, send them out of the country to do well and attract tax revenues back to the home country, or have a domestic market large enough to encourage economic development (US/EU), Canada must fend for herself, so she neither grows dramatically, nor shrinks when economic tides turn. Sure we did well when the oil prices shot through the roof in the last 14 years. And while the momentary bliss of a strong dollar at par was enjoyable, the truth is that it's not worth the whole $1US simply because Canada doesn't produce and export much except for natural resources. Therefore, as the Canadian dollar dives to around $0.83-85 US (my prediction), our purchasing power will decrease internationally. And while for countries that are huge on exports low domestic currency can be a blessing, for simple Canadians who already overpay relative, say, to their American neighbours who don't have an overly regulated economy, this will not be good news. 

It is what it is. In order for Canada to be fully global it needs to encourage economic mobility of its citizens and financial producers, yet it struggles to keep people here - hence the current rhetoric about keeping PRs/citizenship applicants in the country, procedurally punishing those that travel while waiting for their citizenship and scrutinizing international connections of its subjects-to-be.  Ultimately, this will attract the very folks who won't rise above $65-80K in annual salaries and will be happy with what Canada has to offer. There's nothing wrong this, mind you. To each his/her own.