Talk:Visa requirements for Canadian citizens/Archives/2023/October

Visa free access to the United States
"Canadian passport is entitled to 180 days or 6 months visa free stay in the United States" Can someone give more details on that. Thanks. Awaypitchch (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Error - South Korea
The source indicates a maximum stay of 6 months without visa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsonrobers1 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Error - Australia
Canadian citizens travelling to Australia require an Electronic Travel Authority which must be granted before travelling to Australia (fee payable). The world map claims a visa is granted on arrival which is not correct. Robert Brockway (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The updated map lists Australia as "Visa on arrival or Internet registration (with a fee)" which is correct, so this problem has been fixed. Robert Brockway (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates
From January 2nd onwards, Canadian citizens travelling to the UAE will require a pre-arrival visa, which can also be obtained online from Emirates or Etihad Airways. Should the updated world map place the UAE as "Visa on arrival or Internet registration (with a fee)" or "Pre-arrival visa required?"

Bloom6132 (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say pre-arrival for sure. It just happens to be available also online, but its still a pre arrival visa. Outback the koala (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Reciprocity
How come only Asia has this as a column? Should we have it at all? Outback the koala (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This column has been added to the Europe section and has now just been completed. Bloom6132 (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan
Should Iraq be listed with (Iraqi Kurdistan only) and state "visa issued upon arrival at Erbil Airport (free of charge)?" Furthermore, should the map be updated to place Iraq as visa-free (which is done in Visa requirements for Chinese citizens of Hong Kong and British nationals). Bloom6132 (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC) - Not just Erbil but at the border with Turkey as well you can get a visa on arrival.

Uzbekistan is missing in the list
207.35.6.2 (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Anna207.35.6.2 (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * According to and, a visa is still required for Canadian citizens entering Uzbekistan Bloom6132 (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia
I believe a Hajj visa is required before visiting Saudi Arabia. --24.222.82.111 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Visa on arrival and pre-registration.
Hi everyone! Just wondering whether it would be a good idea to distinguish countries which require a visa on arrival (with a fee) and those who require a pre-departure internet registration such as Australia for instance.

Comments are welcome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.198.89 (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Bhutan
From this source, it states that "Holders of an application for a tourist visa can obtain a visa on arrival for a max. stay of 15 days, provided that an application is sent by a tour operator to the Department of Tourism, at least 2 1/2 months in advance, and visa clearance is obtained."

Should Bhutan be placed under "Visa on arrival or Internet registration (with a fee)" or "Pre-arrival visa required?" It seems to fit both categories. Bloom6132 (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * After looking up a few sources, I've discovered that an entire trip to Bhutan (rather than just a visa application) requires clearance before one can be issued airline tickets. Therefore, I have listed Bhutan as VOA. Bloom6132 (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Seychelles
There is some discrepancy over the duration of stay granted by Seychelles to Canadian citizens. The Canadian government states that a visa is "not required (for stays less than 90 days)," while Timaticweb  states that a "Visitor's Permit" can be obtained "on arrival for a max. stay of 1 month." Which source should this article stick to? Bloom6132 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea
One notes that the map by colouring shows New Britain, New Ireland and Bougainville to be part of the Solomon Islands rather than Papua New Guinea. This could presumably be corrected without undue difficulty. Masalai (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Argentina and Chile
For Argentina and Chile, it says "90 Days." However that is only partially correct. For both countries, Canadian citizens have to pay a reciprocity fee to get the visa: $75 USD for Argentina and $132 USD for Chile. TonyStarks (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * True. This does not qualify them for green in the table or blue on the map. I'll change the table, can someone change the map? --Truther2012 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * These "fees" do not grant you any kind of visa (i.e. an actual document). They are, by definition of the map, "visa free" (though not free of charge).  Therefore, I will not be changing the map, as that will render it completely inaccurate.  Furthermore, your comment on my TP about "there being three categories" is a perfect example of original research.  The title already sets the scope of what this article covers – visa requirements, not "Visa and entry payment requirements for Canadian citizens." —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not introducing any OR, rather asking for clarification (hence post on your TP). The legend of the map could be misleading as the purple is the colour of "Visa on arrival or internet registration with a fee" - according to the ref within the table Argentina requires Canadian visitors to register on the internet with a fee... I am also taking a cue from entries such as Dominican Republic which requires a purchase of a tourist card, not obtaining an actual visa (map: purple). I know, it's splitting hairs, which is why the question is raised. --Truther2012 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. That makes sense now.  I'm sorry that I kinda assumed any bad faith on your part.  Yes, it is rather confusing, given that a tourist card isn't "officially" a visa, but substitutes for one.  I think a safe parameter to set for what constitutes a visa with a fee is – if you have to pay but don't get a visa/tourist card/document, then I don't think it should be classified as visa with a fee, as it's simply a fee.  I know an exit visa/tax is a completely different situation, but in Hong Kong, nobody considers the $125 departure tax a requirement to leave. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this article (and others like it) needs this ^^^ type of explicit definition in the opener, just to prevent this type of back-and-forth. As I said, I saw your comment after the fact, but it too will get burried in a month or two. As far as the scope of the article goes, perhaps, it needs to get rethought as well - it looks like the tables are more about entry requirements and reciprocities, than visas per se. --Truther2012 (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancy between number of countries granting visa-free access on main page and Henley Partner Source
https://www.henleyglobal.com/citizenship/visa-restrictions/

The source (2013) asserts Canadians have visa-free or visa-on-arrival "score" of 170, 3 less than the top-ranked Sweden and Finland, and ranked in the same with France. However, they do not make it entirely clear what that score entails, as there seems to be discrepancies between that score and number of visa-free access nations for all wikipedia articles. I also know that UAE recently gave Canadian passport holders visa-free access. Can anyone check just how many nations can the Canadian passport enter visa-free (from the most recent edition of Henley Partners website)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.29.53.184 (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect map caption
The caption for the global map says, "visa requirements for Australian citizens.″ Clearly this is wrong. ThubLives (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Corrected.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Australia
Australia calls Electronic Travel Authority registration "e-visa", hence, the visa is required (in advance or on arrival) in order to travel to Australia.--Truther2012 (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They call the Subclass 600 available to some countries online as e600 an "e visa" but the Electronic Travel Authority is referred to as Electronic Travel Authority. I am not sure if they refer to it as an "e-visa" except perhaps in some broader sense, but in the definition of the ETA I haven't seen the "e-visa" being used. They surely don't use that term for eVisitor, especially while trying to convince the European Commission that it is not a visa (it would be ridiculous to call it a visa in their factsheets). I think the same goes for the ETA. But if you do have any references to Australia calling the ETA registration an "e-visa" please share it. Here is the definition from the fact sheet 53 "The ETA is an electronically stored authority for travel to Australia for short-term tourist or business visits." --Twofortnights (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Immigration Australia subclass 601 (aka ETA) is a subclass of visas (just like other subclasses)--Truther2012 (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, Government of Canada also considers this a visa, as shown here --Truther2012 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Error Vietnam
Canadians require a visa to visit Vietnam. You can apply for the visa at the border only for emergencies, otherwise it has to be done ahead of time.

From http://www.vietem-ca.com/html/service.html

"The Embassy of Vietnam in Canada would like to inform that: a. Visitors must obtain for a valid visa issued by the Embassy of VietNam in Canada before boarding for their travel to Vietnam." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.194.215 (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Virgin Islands
I looked at the reference for this and I can't see where it says you need an ESTA to travel. Visarequirementsedit (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. It's an error, I will fix it.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Visarequirementsedit (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Map: Greenland - Iceland - Norway
On the map, it looks like Greenland, Iceland and Norway are somehow connected. I can get Greenland and Denmark... --Truther2012 (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Greece - Crete - Cyprus... we dont want to start any conflicts here... --Truther2012 (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And Italy and Malta. They are connected for an obvious reason, the same visa zone - Schengen Area. Additional reason why they are connected is so that they can be painted in one click. Lines connecting them don't represent anything but the shortest line, if you think this is going to cause a conflict, you can connect Iceland via Portugal and Cyprus via Malta but that wouldn't make much sense visually.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although Cyprus is not a Schengen member (yet), and Denmark (along with Greenland) has slightly different policy from Schengen agreement according to the very article. My greater concern is for misunderstanding by some readers what these lines represent, particularly in the case of Cyprus being "connected" to Greece --Truther2012 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * True, Cyprus is not a Schengen member, however their visa policy is the same, and Schengen visas are valid for Cyprus. As for misunderstanding, I hope they will see it as a single visa zone which it is rather than something sinister. As for Denmark, difference in policy is in condition of stay, the map only represents visa-free/visa required situation, not the length of stay.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's hope so, thank! --Truther2012 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Henley Rankings
, Henley Passport Ranking does what is called a dense ranking, i.e. assigning same ranks to more then one country without increasing the rank. As the result, Canada while indeed being ranked #2 (tied with Denmark), does not have the second most "admissible" passport, but rather (at least) sixth after Finland, Germany, Sweden, USA, United Kingdom. To me, this is confusing, if not misleading. I propose to remove the part where it refers to the ranking or maybe alter the language to something less confusing...--Truther2012 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You haven't thought this one true. Here is why. If Canada is sixth then what is Denmark? Seventh? Only because of the alphabet? You see the problem. Dense ranking makes perfect sense here because Canadian passport has the second best ranking, that is the point of that index, and not how many countries there are on the list. If you would say it's sixth, it would be misleading because it would suggest that there are certain five individual better results and that is not the case. Plus you can't do a synthesis that is not in the source, the source never mentions Canada being sixth. Suggesting it's sixth would be original research. I propose a note that would say "Countries ranked by dense ranking" or "Dense ranking used" or smth similar.--Twofortnights (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I propose not to included any position number, but rather state that it is "admitted in X countries behind Finland, Germany, Sweden, USA and United Kingdom." In my view, addition of a note on dense ranking will add more confusion and potentially undue weight to this otherwise trivial fact.--Truther2012 (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But how would you write a lead for, for an example - Visa requirements for Russian citizens? Russian passport is 38th in dense ranking and who knows which one overall, if you would use the "admitted in X countries behind" formula you would have to list something like 60 countries.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, the ranking information is trivial and only tangentially useful to the visa requirements. It is kind of interesting to be able to claim that one country's passport is "the best", but rather useless if it is "number 38, if you count a special way". It will get even weirder for the "worst" passport, which may be ranked 75 out of 175 or something like that. The true value of Henley here is the claim of the number of visa-free countries, which we further validate in the body of the article. So, my proposal is to keep the number visa-free countries, but remove the ranking with the exception of the best and maybe the worst countries. --Truther2012 (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I don't think removing it altogether is much of a compromise, however I have tweaked it further. The thing is notes don't have to be part of the sentence, they can be in the footer so that's what I did. Hopefully this is better and avoids any possible confusion.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

India
India recently announced visas for Canadians on arrival.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/india-declares-liberalised-visa-policy-for-canadians_1579394.html

http://tribune.com.pk/story/870952/canadians-to-be-granted-visa-on-arrival-in-india/ 50.92.134.24 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Me== Cuba ==

Visa requirement for Cuba is misleading - the visa is automatically granted on arrival to Canadians with the tourist card that is provided on all flights from Canada to Cuba. Why do we need a separate visa category for Cuba only, out of all countries? Should be listed as "Visa on arrival" with an explanation about the necessity of having the card. It is not much different from Dominican Republic, with the only difference of timing of tourist card purchase. "Dominican Republic	Visa not required[70]	90 days (10 USD Tourist Card must be purchased upon arrival)" 198.96.178.33 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you about the similarity, the superscripts on the 'Visa Requirements' column point to distinct pages in the KLM document. These might change, for one thing. For another, we'd have a lot of work to do monitoring differences among destinations if we attempted to put them into categories. Beyond that, Cuba and the Dominican Republic are, individually, significant destinations. SewerCat (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

KLM document states exactly this: "Visa required, except for Passengers with a Tourist Card (Tarjeta del Turista) issued to visitors traveling as tourists. Additional Information:

- Tourist Cards (Tarjeta del Turista) must be obtained prior to arrival in Cuba." According to this, for anyone in possession of Tourist Card a visa is NOT required. People will be potentially misinformed by the published information, assuming that obtaining a visa prior to travel is required, which is not the case. We should adjust the visa requirement listing. 198.96.178.33 (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The document is clearly called a visa - --Twofortnights (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So it is essentially a visa on arrival. Legacypac (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No it is not. Word "prior" means in advance, before. So prior to arrival means before arrival not on arrival.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Prior" means a flight attendent hands you a blank form before you reach immigration control in Cuba. The visa is issued at immigration control not at a consulate like a Visa in Advance situation. It is a Visa on Arrival situation, just like any other country were you fill out the form just before passing immigration. In fact the page lists countries as Visa on Arrival where sending documents days in advance is required (Vietnam for one). Cuba is much easier than that. Legacypac (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Required Fingerprints to Japan
I recently went to Japan as a Canadian Citizen with a Canadian Passport in early 2016. I nor none of my family was fingerprinted, however the page says you would need to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.14.219 (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Cape Verde
Notwithstanding the listing here showing Visa On Arrival as available, the Cape Verde embassy in Washington DC informed me that all Canadians and Malaysians (and it sounded like all nationalities) require a visa issued in advance by them. My enquiry was for arriving by cruise ship, so air arrival might be different and most visitors would arrive by air to the islands. There is no Cape Verde office in Canada so the Washington DC office covers Canada. Legacypac (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not unusual for consulates to withhold information on visa on arrival as they live of taxes including visa taxes. Not saying it is the case here but it's worth considering.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Followup - got the visa from the Washington DC embassy and successfully visited by ship. Immigration agents visited the ship but no passport checks. In fact I spent an hour going around trying to get a stamp in my passport but no one (main immigrwtion office in town, office at port, and the police immigration lady that handled my ship) would do it. I'm unclear if the cruise line checked or recorded the visa info. If crusing to Cape Verde, further investigation is required before sending off for a visa. See if the cruise line requires the visa or not. Legacypac (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming changes re: Uzbekistan
It looks like as of 15 July 2018 an e-visa will be obtainable by Canadians for a 30 day stay, and visa-free access for a stay of max of 5 days will be allowed for those transitting through an airport in Uzbekistan. . 169.0.253.148 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alert! --BushelCandle (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we use other colours than only green?
The map is using four shades of green. They're not easily distinguishable at first glance. I feel we need various colours for a better contrast. Rémi (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Green is a colour that is usually associated with something being allowed so that is why it is used. Also any changes would have to apply to 190+ other articles for consistency reasons.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Israel
Article mentions that as of Juna 2017 they still stamp at the Aqaba / Eilat border. I entered Israel from there in May 2017 and was handed the entry card. However does not change much as you're still stuck with an Aqaba exit stamp (- or a Jordan entry stamp with no exit). Ben Gurion had also been updated with automated machines that open doors when you scan your exit card. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclavoie (talk • contribs) 01:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ranking
Article mentions that Canada is in second position as of 2021, however the source indicates that Canada is in 9th position, in addition to referring to 2020 data, so the article is wrong.

Colours on map
I have struggled to make much sense of the map. I'm not in the least colour-blind and the issue is not my monitor as it's the same on another device. Two of the squares on the key (Visa not required; and Visa not required/eTA) appear to be the same shade of green. Some countries are a sort of lime-green on the map (e.g. Nepal) but there is no exactly corresponding colour in the key, but from reading the requirements, it's meant to correspond with the second box up, though the colour in that box looks like it matches countries like Egypt. To add to the general confusion, there is also some colour coding in the Visa Requirements section, but these colours sometimes match with either the map or the map key, and sometimes not, and there is no key to in this section.

The page Visa_policy_of_the_United_States is far clearer.

I have no idea how to fix any of this but thought I'd mention the problem in the hope that someone can look at it. asnac (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

India
India has suspended visa services for citizens of Canada.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/india-suspends-visa-services-canada-rift-widens-killing-103370607

> The suspension means that Canadians who don’t already have visas will not be able to travel to India until services resume

Assuming this is true, this means that the requirements to get a visa for Canadian citizens are non-existent. You can't get a visa or an e-visa or whatever. They are no longer "you need an e-visa" they are now "you can't enter the country". Sure, this is probably a short-term political thing but that doesn't matter for the map being correct right now.

I understand that people want to distinguish between "no new visas" and "no entry even if you have a visa". But the way I see it this is a map of "visa requirements" and the requirements are currently that effectively you can't get one. If we all know that you can't get one, it doesn't matter if it's written in a law or policy document somewhere. We can change the wording to reflect that but I think having the caveat in the notes is good enough. I also think it's more useful to more people (especially over time if this lasts, as there are more new travelers as opposed to people with visas already) to be told they can't travel to India. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * When drafting my edit I thought about writing it as you later editted it to but decided against it. But you make a very good point, I now agree with you, it should be the current requirements for new travellers. Thanks for the edit. 104.224.125.103 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)