1940s document key to citizenship for Lost Canadian Jackie Scott: “Absurd injustice” denies citizenship to War Bride children

For Immediate Release

Jackie Scott was born in England
to a Canadian War Bride and
came to Canada in 1948.

(May 10, 2012) - A Surrey, B.C. woman who arrived in Canada in 1948 with her War Bride mother is now fighting for her citizenship in the Federal Court. A document from the 1940s recently discovered in the Library and Archives in Ottawa could hold the key to citizenship for Jackie Scott and others, known as Lost Canadians, who are excluded from citizenship because they were born out of wedlock outside Canada before 1947.

A transcript of the document, with its archival reference, can be found on the Lost Canadian website at http://tinyurl.com/chsd2o6

Jackie Scott and her parents
at Niagara Falls in 1948, soon
after she and her mother
arrived in Canada.

Jackie Scott was born in England in 1945 to a Canadian father and a British mother. She was born out of wedlock because her father, a Canadian soldier of the Second World War, could not get the required permission to marry. Such cases were common and inevitable under wartime conditions. After the war, Ms Scott’s father was repatriated to Canada, but because of poor health she was unable to travel to Canada with her mother until 1948. Shortly after her arrival, her parents were married in Toronto. By her parents’ marriage Ms Scott was legitimated retroactively from birth under Ontario law, but is still excluded from citizenship by the continuing application of an obscure provision of the 1946 Canadian Citizenship Act. She is now suing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the Federal Court.

A document found last week on a microfilm in the Library and Archives could determine the outcome of Ms Scott’s case. Its subject line reads: ‘Canadian Citizenship Act – Ruling status of illegitimate child whose father is Canadian citizen’. Written by a senior immigration officer and dated Sept 3, 1948, the document describes a case substantially the same as Ms Scott’s. A child was born in the United States, out of wedlock, to a Canadian father and an American mother. No date of birth is given for the unnamed child, but a reference to section 4 of the 1946 Canadian Citizenship Act – the same section that applies to Ms Scott’s case – confirms that it was before the Act came into force on January 1, 1947. Three weeks after the birth, the parents married. The father returned to Canada and his wife and child later applied for entry to join him.

An immigration officer, applying the same law by which Ms Scott is excluded from citizenship, admitted the child to Canada as an immigrant. The case was subsequently referred to the Registrar of Canadian Citizenship, who gave the following ruling:

‘I think it would be right and proper to recognize the child as a Canadian citizen. I note that the marriage of the parents took only three weeks after the date of birth of the child. We are of the opinion that a marriage under these conditions, wherein the father recognizes, by the fact of marriage, that the child is his own, and that in all probability the laws of the community in which the child is born would recognize it as legitimate, we should take the view that the child is the legitimate offspring of the father and in consequence should be regarded as a natural born Canadian.’

Ms. Scott says the document confirms what she has always believed, that she is a Canadian citizen from birth “by operation of law.”

“That the present government disregards the decision made in September 1948 regarding pre-1947 out-of-wedlock children who were subsequently legitimated by their parents' marriage, as well as other Supreme Court rulings, is unconscionable,” says Ms. Scott. “It's time for the Canadian government to recognize the citizenship of individuals in my position and immediately do the right thing and honour the directive handed down in 1948.”

A friend of Ms Scott commented: ‘The Minister has a political decision to make: take the high road and correct this absurd injustice now, whether by administrative or legislative action, or fight the Lost Canadians in court. If he chooses the latter, he must explain what the government is defending, what policy objective is served, by continuing to exclude people from citizenship solely because they were born out of wedlock over 65 years ago.’ No date has been set for a hearing of Ms Scott’s case in the Federal Court.

A transcript of the document, with its archival reference, can be found on the Lost Canadian website at http://tinyurl.com/chsd2o6

Status of Illegitimate Child 1948

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND RESOURCES

Immigration Branch

                                                                                                Ottawa, September 3, 1948

Circular #78(B)

To Immigration Officers,

Atlantic District

Subject: Canadian Citizenship Act – Ruling Status of illegitimate child whose father is Canadian citizen

A ruling has been received from the Citizenship Branch concerning the status of an illegitimate child whose father is a Canadian citizen. The case upon which the ruling is based is as follows:-

“A Canadian born citizen was living in the United States out of wedlock with an American born woman. They had an illegitimate child born in the United States. Subsequent to the birth of the child (three weeks thereafter) the parents were married. The father returned to Canada and his wife and child later applied for entry to join him. Our examining officer at the port of entry took the view that the child, having been born out of wedlock, came under Part 1, Section 4, (b) of the Canadian Citizenship Act, deriving citizenship from his mother. Therefore, the child was regarded as an immigrant, of American citizenship, and admitted as such. However, when the facts were submitted to the Citizenship Branch for review the Registrar furnished the following ruling:-

I think it would be right and proper to recognize the child as a Canadian citizen. I note that the Marriage of the parents took place approximately three weeks after the date of birth of the child. We are of the opinion that a marriage under these conditions, wherein the father recognizes, by the fact of marriage, that the child is his own, and that in all probability the laws of the Community in which the child is born would recognize it as legitimate, we should take the view that the child is the legitimate offspring of the father and in consequence should be recognized as a natural born Canadian”.

            The above is furnished for your information in the event that you have to deal with a case of this type.

(Signature illegible)
District Superintendent

Source: Libraries and Archives Canada

 Canadian Citizenship Act and Regulations 1945-1952 (RG76, Volume 519,

 File 801544, part 9, 1947-49)

 Microfilm reel C-10615

Transcribed 2012-05-02

Order in Council P.C. 1945-858 and the Lost Canadians

A gateway to Canadian citizenship 

 R. H. Addington May 8, 2012

Order in Council P.C. 1945-858 and the Lost Canadians

Page 1 of
Order in Council 858
Click for larger view

On February 9th, 1945, the Cabinet made an Order in Council that is now all but forgotten but is of continuing importance to one group of remaining Lost Canadians: War Bride children who arrived in Canada before January 1st, 1947. Some of them, after a lifetime in Canada, are still excluded from citizenship because they were born out of wedlock, even if their parents later married. The purpose of this note is to show that this continuing denial of citizenship is both historically and legally indefensible.

Historically, Order in Council P.C. 1945-858 was just one of thousands of wartime Orders in Council made under the special powers of the War Measures Act. Its existence has always been known, but only recently has it been studied because it is not readily accessible to the general public. It was never published in the Canada Gazette and has not yet been digitized by the Library and Archives but is accessible there both in print and on microfilm (LAC References: Canadian War Orders and Regulations 1945, Volume 1, No 7 (printed booklet), AMICUS No 101204; Microfilm Reel No T-5174).

The purpose of P.C. 1945-858 was to facilitate the entry to Canada of the arriving military dependents; i.e., the women who had married Canadian soldiers overseas during the Second World War, and of their children. It did so in two ways. First, it allowed the military dependents to enter Canada without meeting the usual requirements of the Immigration Act, except for a medical examination. (Section 2 of the Order in Council allowed delayed entry of those who could not pass the medical examination). Second, it gave the military dependents immediate Canadian domicile, and Canadian citizenship as then defined under the Immigration Act.

Section 3 of the Order in Council reads as follows: 

Every dependent who is permitted to enter Canada pursuant to section two of this Order shall for the purpose of Canadian immigration law be deemed to be a Canadian citizen if the member of the forces upon whom he is dependent is a Canadian citizen and shall be deemed to have Canadian domicile if the said member has Canadian domicile.

Page 2 of
Order in Council 858
Click for larger view

 But what did the term ‘Canadian citizen’ mean in 1945? The answer is found in the Immigration Act , R.S.C. 1927, c. 93, at par.


2(b): ‘Canadian citizen’ means

(i) a person born in Canada who has not become an alien;

(ii) a British subject who has Canadian domicile; or

(iii) a person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile.

The Order in Council did not make new law; it simply recognized the status of the arriving military dependents under existing law, treating them more as returning Canadians than as immigrants. The government of the day clearly regarded them as members of the Canadian family, as indeed they already were by blood or marriage.

From January 1st, 1947, citizenship status was determined solely by the Canadian Citizenship Act 1946. Two sections of the Act apply to persons born before 1947: section 4 and section 9. Section 4 deals with ‘natural-born Canadian citizens; section 9 with ‘Canadian citizens other than natural-born’. War Bride children born out of wedlock are excluded from citizenship under section 4, unless the mother was Canadian. Section 9, however, contains no restrictions based on the sex or marital status of the parents. It gives citizenship to all British subjects, other than natural-born citizens, who had Canadian domicile on January 1st, 1947. That would logically include War Bride children born out of wedlock. On statutory interpretation, they are indisputably ‘Canadian citizens other than natural-born’, by operation of law.

In Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Taylor (2007 FCA 349), the Federal Court of Appeal, reversing the earlier judgement of Martineau J. of the Federal Court (2006 FC 1053), held that P.C. 1945-858 could not, ‘in and of itself confer the status of “Canadian citizenship” (par. [52]). The Court did not, however, rule that rights acquired before January 1st, 1947 were somehow extinguished by the Canadian Citizenship Act 1946. On the contrary, those pre-existing rights were expressly saved by sub-section 46.(1) of the Act.  Anyone who on December 31st, 1946 was a British subject who had Canadian domicile was still a British subject with Canadian domicile on January 1st, 1947 and a citizen under the new Act. And the Court of Appeal noted (par. [53]) that the Minister had conceded before Martineau J. that Mr Taylor had indeed acquired Canadian domicile and the same status as his father on arrival in Canada, and would have become a citizen under the 1946 Act had he not left Canada with his mother before January 1st, 1947. The Court did not, however, accept the Minister’s argument that Mr Taylor had lost Canadian domicile when he left Canada.

The Minister had also conceded that:

[54] While P.C. 858 itself limited its reach "for the purpose of Canadian immigration law", the amendments to the [1910] Immigration Act, also coming into force on January 1, 1947 changed the definition of citizen to incorporate the definition found in the new [1947] Canadian Citizenship Act. Additionally, the combination of being granted domicile and being a British subject would have themselves met the requirements of the 1947 Canadian Citizenship Act [emphasis in original].

(Since Mr Taylor had claimed citizenship only under section 4 of the Canadian Citizenship Act 1946, the Court of Appeal did not rule on whether, in the alternative, he had acquired citizenship under section 9 which, as noted above, has no out-of-wedlock exclusion. In the end, the Court ruled that even if Mr Taylor became a citizen in 1947 he had lost Canadian citizenship by failing to meet the pre-1977 retention conditions at age 24.)

The transition from the old definition of citizenship under the Immigration Act to the new definition under the Canadian Citizenship Act 1946 was seamless. That is exactly what Parliament intended. The contrary interpretation, that Canadian citizenship was somehow created ex nihilo on January 1st, 1947, with no legal continuity with what went before, is both historically and legally untenable. This argument applies to any case involving an out-of-wedlock War Bride child.

Vancouver Observer: Lifelong Canadians face discrimination by their own government...still

Advocates for Lost Canadians – those excluded from citizenship because of obscure legal loopholes – are asking questions after citizenship and immigration minister Jason Kenney seemingly admitted to discrimination recently at a press conference.

Click here to read original article in the Vancouver Observer

When the Vancouver Observer asked the minister whether the Canadian government denies citizenship based on gender, age, or marital status, he said no.

"No, citizenship isn't and shouldn't be," he said. "The Citizenship Act lays out who can become citizens and it is available to anyone ... regardless of marital status or age."

This statement seemed to be a huge paradox for many Lost Canadians, who are currently being denied citizenship, as well as old age benefits, based on the fact that they are seniors (born before 1947) and born out of wedlock, often to war veterans and war brides. What, if not discrimination, was preventing Canadians who had lived their entire lives in the country from obtaining citizenship?

Lifelong Canadians facing discrimination

There are famous cases of lifelong Canadians who have been struggling for recognition of their Canadian status. Jackie Scott, 66, was blocked from citizenship in 2005 because her parents – including her Canadian war veteran father – were unwed when she was born, based on an obscure clause covering people born in Canada prior to the 1947 Citizenship Act. Prior to that act, a so-called “illegitimate” child was the sole property of the mother, and her mother was British. Scott, with Chapman, filed a lawsuit last month for her citizenship in a federal court.

Then there are people like Ian Munroe, a former serviceman who served the Canadian military for 18 years before being told that he wasn't a Canadian citizen. Despite Kenney's claim that Citizenship isn't based on marital status, government authorities asked Munroe whether his parents were married at the time that he was born -- the question is technically illegal, classified as discriminatory under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Even though Munroe ended up receiving his citizenship in his sixties, he spent the majority of his life stateless.

Leonard Johnson is currently being denied benefits because -- despite having lived in Canada since 1947 with his war bride mother and having worked paid taxes in the country, he was denied his old age security pension last month. Johnson, however, was able to obtain British citizenship in order to travel. He is currently 65, however, and now only has 20 per cent vision out of one eye and is blind in the other, which makes it difficult for him to complete paperwork in order to become a Canadian citizen.

Even though there are several situations in which people can become Lost Canadians, war bride children who were born in 1946 and 1947 are in the spotlight because they are now applying for Old Age pensions, and are becoming 'red-flagged' when they report to the government that they were born in England or Scotland. Since many of them never realized they weren't Canadian to begin with, they find themselves at loss when the government refuses to grant them any pension or benefits.

Refusal to speak about citizenship issues

Last month, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) suddenly over-ruled a Vancouver Observer scheduled interview with the head of Canada's Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Nicole Girard, in Ottawa.

“The interview request was refused at a higher level,” CIC spokesperson Remi Lariviere explained, apologetically.

Lost Canadians advocate Don Chapman expressed dismay at both Kenney's remarks and the government's refusal to meet in person with the Vancouver Observer – saying it demonstrates their unwillingness to address the concerns of rightful Canadians.

Chapman, once a Lost Canadian himself, has long campaigned for several years on the matter, and added that there could be up to 40,000 people still excluded from citizenship unfairly.

“What public good is being served by keeping these people out?” he asked. “Excuse me, but if you had a business in Canada, and you refused to hire someone because of their age, gender, or family status, you'd be before the courts. It's illegal.

“But here's the government of Canada saying, 'We're okay with that.' In other words, we're not going to abide by the Charter or our own laws.”

Finish the job
The New Democratic Party (NDP)'s immigration critic, Don Davies, called upon the government to fix the Citizenship Act to include what he suggested could amount to tens of thousands of people who, for all intents and purposes, are Canadians without citizenship. He said that a 2009 revision to the act – Bill C-37 – enfranchised 95 per cent of Lost Canadians – but the government should “finish the job.”

“It should be the goal and desire of the federal government to fix the citizenship problems for everybody, not just for 50 per cent or 75 per cent or 90 per cent,” Davies told the Vancouver Observer. “Everybody who should have Canadian citizenship intact should be dealt with.

“If Jason Kenney puts his money where his mouth is and really believes that Canadian citizenship is something that should be exalted, then he should be getting on this right away.”

In an emailed response to the Vancouver Observer's questions – sent in lieu of the cancelled interview – another Citizenship and Immigration Canada media spokesperson said remaining Lost Canadians can apply for special consideration.

“Canada’s citizenship laws are generous and cover the situations of most people,” Jack Branswell, manager of media relations for the department, commented. “Those not covered can apply for a discretionary grant of citizenship. The acceptance rates for discretionary grants of citizenship are high (92 per cent).

Branswell said that the 2009 changes restored or gave citizenship to the vast majority of those who lost or never had it because of outdated provisions in previous legislation.

The Lost Canadians left behind
Both Davies and Chapman agreed that Bill C-37 restored citizenship to many rightful claimants, but asked why legislation cannot be extended to address problems of marital status and birth year, two of the remaining criteria for exclusion.

“Huge numbers benefited,” Chapman said. “But what about those who didn't?

“Here's what the government answer is: do it on a case-by-case basis. Do you believe a politician should be judge of whether or not you're Canadian? That's what the courts have said they don't want to happen.”

John Weston, Conservative Member of Parliament for West Vancouver, said that he supports expanding citizenship coverage for such cases as Jackie Scott.

“Jackie Scott should have citizenship, I've told cabinet members that,” said Weston, who sits on Parliament's citizenship and immigration committee. “I am vying for further Citizenship Act (amendments) that would ultimately enfranchise her as a citizen.”

Weston said that Citizenship and Immigration had declined a “very rarely provided minister's order” to grant Scott exceptional consideration, but that the number of people actually falling through the cracks of the 2009 amendments are “150 or less, in that range,” contradicting Chapman and Davies' claim there are up to 40,000 Lost Canadians. Chapman added later added that 150 or less was grossly inaccurate, since CIC admitted in July 2010 that there were at least 750,000 cases of Lost Canadians, and 5 per cent of that number is closer to 40,000.

Is 95 per cent good enough?
Within the Conservative Party, Weston said, he is proposing a change to grant citizenship to those, like Scott, who are excluded based on outdated social norms of “legitimacy” -- i.e., being born in wedlock, or having a Canadian father rather than a Canadian mother.

“It would affect a class of citizens – people born out of wedlock before 1947 – who are not allowed citizenship,” Weston said. “That's a bias no one I know considers fair or just – I don't know any Canadian who would say that's fair.

For advocates like Chapman, individual appeals and internal government discussions are not enough to address what he views as an injustice towards people who, for all intents and purposes, live as Canadians and may not even realize they do not qualify for citizenship.

“Australia had the same wacky laws on their books as Canada – because all these laws were British,” Chapman said. “But everybody else corrected these.

“Canada is one last hold-out that doesn't want to really correct it totally. They're saying, 'We did it for 95 per cent, and that's good enough.' Is that really a way a country should treat its people?”

Vancouver Observer: Discriminatory laws against unwed mothers leave Lost Canadian Ken Smith out in the cold

Liz Johnston and her husband, Lost Canadian Ken Smith, at their home in White Rock. Photo by Alexis Stoymenoff

Click here to read original article in the Vancouver Observer

As the world celebrate progress on International Women's Day, Lost Canadians born out of wedlock still face gender discrimination due to outdated citizenship laws.
Ken Smith and his wife Liz Johnston love to travel. But recently, planning a vacation has become a nearly impossible task.

“Lately, we’ve had some problems at the border because of my weird situation, where I can’t say I’m Canadian but I’ve lived here the majority of my life,” said Smith.

The 68-year-old White Rock resident is one of a number of Lost Canadians, excluded from citizenship due to the country’s archaic laws. Despite having lived in Canada since 1945, he’s been rejected twice by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. And ever since border security ramped up after 9/11 he says he’s had terrible experiences with customs officials.

“They don’t understand why I’m not Canadian, so immediately that raises some flags. About a year ago, the flags were all raised and we ended up not being able to go on our vacation down in the Caribbean because the plane landed in the United States,” Smith recalled.

“So we’ve got a little process that we’ve got to go through, and we’ve been advised that it won’t be a problem...if you get your citizenship first. And that shouldn’t be a problem, right? Well, guess what? It is.”

Discrimination against women

Smith was born in England in 1943, to a British mother and Canadian father in the Royal Regiment. His parents were married 10 months after his birth, and they moved to Canada in 1945. Tragically, Smith’s mother died just 12 days after they arrived in Toronto, and when his father soon remarried, he was raised to believe that his stepmother was really his birth mother. It was not until his thirties that he finally found out he was not born in Canada.

Because Smith was born out of wedlock before 1947, the law says he’s not a citizen—even though his father was Canadian. Outdated regulations affecting war brides like his mother are the reason for many of the current Lost Canadian cases.

While it may seem shocking that such a discriminatory law is still in effect, despite aggressive appeals from citizenship advocates, the government has yet to fully resolve the issue.

“They still apply the laws of the time, which were, of course, very discriminatory,” said Johnston, who has passionately taken up the cause on her husband’s behalf.

“I mean, they’re not legal today but they apply these laws. It’s bizarre. And it’s because Ken was born out of wedlock. He was ‘owned’ by his mother, who was not a Canadian, which means he wasn’t Canadian.”

This week, as politicians commend progress on gender equality in honour of International Women’s Day, it’s particularly important to consider how such rules are still in effect. The laws at the time discriminated against women who had children out of wedlock, and the government continues to hold up this discrimination in existing legislation.

“There’s no question. If you’re a person who has a Canadian parent, you should be Canadian. Period,” said Johnston.

“It’s disheartening. It really is. Because you’re here, but you’re not one of them,” added Smith.

“There are times when you feel like you don’t even want to do it. You don’t even want to become Canadian, because why should you fight to become what you legally are supposed to be?”

Bill C-37, a problematic solution

Like many Lost Canadians, Smith was initially encouraged by news of a bill that passed in 2009—Bill C-37—which helped restore citizenship to people affected by loopholes in the Citizenship Act. Unfortunately, there were still many whose circumstances did not apply to the new legislation.

Smith was one of those excluded.

“We celebrated Bill C-37. I was pleased, and then it seemed to slide back to where we were before,” said Smith.

“Understanding that there’s about five per cent of the Lost Canadians who haven’t been dealt with, they’re saying that they’ll deal with them on a case-by-case basis. But the question is, how are they making judgment on a case-by-case basis? What rules are applying? They need to make it clear,” said Johnston.

While there have been some successes, other Lost Canadians who have applied on this “case-by-case” basis have still been denied. There has, however, been some recent progress in more aggressive appeals to the federal government.

Smith says he's paying close attention to a landmark court case taken up by Lost Canadian advocate Don Chapman, regarding the citizenship of Jackie Scott. Like Smith, Scott was also born out of wedlock and now faces a similar challenge in trying to prove her nationality. Just last month, Chapman applied for a federal review of Scott’s case, on the basis of age and gender discrimination.

“I think that the outcome of that case will affect Ken’s situation,” said Johnston.

Next steps

As they await the results of Scott's case, Johnston says she and her husband will continue to push for his own citizenship. But they don't want it to be adversarial.

“I like to advocate in a positive way,” said Johnston.

“And the way of doing that is that we need to find a person who is in a position to make change,” she said, pulling up a list of MPs on her computer.

Johnston says their next step will be reaching out to these politicians, particularly those on the Standing Committee for Citizenship and Immigration. The Vice Chair of this committee, Vancouver Kingsway MP Don Davies, is one of the top names on their to-do list.

Davies has previously commented on Lost Canadians, noting the difficulties in approaching an issue that bureaucrats are “a little reluctant to talk about”.

"I think it's just a combination of bureaucratic rigidity and weird historical elements and policy perspectives that you grapple with,” he said in July 2011.

Having dealt with this “bureaucratic rigidity” for most of his life, Smith says it’s tough sometimes not to simply give up.

“It has the very distinct effect of knocking the wind out of your sails, as they say,” said Smith.

“I’ll push it and push it, and then I get to the point that I’m so fed up with it because it’s so one-sided and it’s so discriminatory. It’s so un-Canadian.”

But despite past disappointments, Johnston is determined to take all necessary steps to secure her husband’s rightful citizenship. She looks forward to the day when they’ll be able to cross the border with ease, when Smith will finally get the acknowledgement he deserves.

“I want Ken to be a Canadian citizen, he wants to be a Canadian citizen—and he is a Canadian citizen. It’s a question of proving it. And that’s what is so frustrating,” said Johnston.

Huffington Post : Harper Could Make This a Happier Women's Day

Two weeks ago, years of Harper government inaction forced Mrs. Jackie Scott, now 66, to file an action in the Federal Court in Vancouver gain her citizenship. It was denied to her because she was born out-of-wedlock.

by Dan Veniez for the Huffington Post

Follow Daniel D. Veniez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@danveniez

Today is International Women's Day, so expect a lot of feel-good words in the House of Commons.

As the father of a 13-year-old daughter, I want her to know that she stands on the shoulders of giants. The opportunities she has today were made possible by the courageous pioneering women that came before her. And while there is much to celebrate in the significant achievement of Canadian women, there is also a great deal of unfinished business.

Click here to read original article in Huffington Post on line

Two weeks ago, years of Harper government inaction forced Mrs. Jackie Scott, now 66, to file an action in the Federal Court in Vancouver gain her citizenship. It was denied to her because she was born out-of-wedlock.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Jackie's mother was an English War bride who came to Canada with her young baby in 1948 to be with her husband, a WWII veteran, James Ellis, who was born in Canada and was wounded in Europe fighting for our country. Sent back to Canada to be treated and recover from his battle injuries, Jack was unable to marry his bride until after infant Jackie was born.

The Ellises -- Jackie's parents -- married shortly after arriving in Canada. They stayed married for 51 years, until Jack died. Their daughter Jackie grew up in Canada, went to school here, voted, paid taxes, married, had a family, had a Social Insurance Number, paid into Canada Pension Plan, and has been married to her Canadian husband for 42 years. She grew up 100-per-cent Canadian and believed that with every fibre in her being. Both Jackie's parents were Canadian, and so was her sister.

But astonishingly, the Government and Parliament of Canada do not deem Jackie to be a Canadian citizen. Why? An arcane and arbitrary clause in the Citizen Act says she can't because her parents didn't quite make it to the church on time before she came into this world.

This is an incredible -- even unbelievable -- story. It is fair to ask what is missing from this picture. Surely, there's more than meets the eye; Jackie has to be a bad person, a criminal, or maybe a tax cheat? No, no, and no. She's been an upstanding citizen all her life.

Many other Canadians were born out-of wedlock prior to 1947. Jackie is far from being alone. To make this even worse, you could also be denied because you were born in wedlock!

Prior to 1947 Canadian married women were considered chattel of their husbands, and children were chattel of their father if born in wedlock, and chattel of their mothers if born out-of- wedlock.

What the Government and Parliament of Canada are effectively saying is that because she was born out-of-wedlock, Jackie was property of her British war bride mother, and not her Canadian soldier father.

Now let's take this further into the Twilight Zone. Arch Ford was born in wedlock prior to 1947, so the Government of Canada is also telling him he's not a Canadian. Why? Because Arch was born in wedlock to a Canadian mother and U.S. father prior to 1947. Ottawa's logic is that he was property of his father and his mother had no standing. Where are the rights of Arch's mother? What the law says is that she doesn't have any, and therefore, Arch is not a Canadian.

What does that say about the fundamental human and civil rights of Canadian women, especially on the day we celebrate their great strides?

It defies common sense and decency that potentially thousands of Canadians could find themselves at risk of being stripped of their citizenship, simply because our government has decided to judge people born prior to 1947 under the archaic laws that were on the books more than half a century ago.

Don Chapman, a tireless advocate for people like Jackie, has been fighting for a decade to correct this historical injustice. The organization he founded, The Lost Canadians, was instrumental in driving important amendments to the Citizenship Act in 2009 to capture people born from 1947 forward. However, inexplicably, the Harper government made the deliberate decision to ignore Canadians born prior to 1947. For reasons that remain a mystery, taking the "acceptance" date back further was not acceptable to the Harper Conservatives.

Therefore, flagrant discrimination in citizenship law -- denying people citizenship only because of age, gender, and family status -- remains the law of the land.

I cannot think of a situation that is more obviously at variance with the basic spirit and tenets of what we stand for as a country. This need not be a political or partisan issue. But this is a profoundly Canadian issue that should and must be rectified.

The lives of real people have been profoundly affected. They have suffered quietly in pain for decades. Their grace and dignity has hidden their real anguish and hurt that their parliament and government have told them they don't belong.

Jackie's father fought for Canada and almost died to protect the freedoms and values we so take for granted. There are far too many Jackie Scott's out there, and that is why she has felt compelled to take the Government of Canada to court to seek justice. Not only for her, but also for all Canadian women, wherever they may be. And for the legacy of our parents and grandparents who sacrificed so much for the country they left us.

A day more of inaction on this matter is contemptible of our parliament and unworthy of Canada. The time has come to correct these historic injustices. On this day -- especially on this day -- actions speak louder than words.

Follow Daniel D. Veniez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@danveniez

Lost Canadians Say Citizenship a Battle for Women’s Rights

Jackie Scott is the daughter of a Canadian War Bride and a World War Two veteran who has been told she is not a Canadian citizen because her parents were not married when she was born in 1945. She is now suing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the Federal Court.

For Immediate Release

(Gibsons, British Columbia – March 7, 2012) - As Canada prepares to observe International Women’s Day on Thursday, some Canadians are still excluded from citizenship solely because they were born to unwed mothers over 65 years ago. They are part of a group known as Lost Canadians: people who are excluded from citizenship or are having difficulty claiming it because of the date or circumstances of their birth.

Among them are some of the 22,000 children who were born overseas to Canadian servicemen and arrived in Canada with their war bride mothers during or immediately after the Second World War. Some were born out of wedlock because their fathers could not get the required permission to marry. Such cases were common and inevitable under wartime conditions. After a lifetime in Canada, these war bride children are still excluded from citizenship by an obscure provision of the 1946 Citizenship Act.

Jackie Scott was born in England in 1945, out of wedlock, to a Canadian soldier and a British mother. Because of poor health, she was unable to travel to Canada with her mother until 1948. Shortly after her arrival, her parents were married in Toronto. By her parents’ marriage she was legitimated retroactively from birth under Ontario law, but is still being denied citizenship. She is now suing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the Federal Court.

Marion Vermeersch, a retired social worker living in Simcoe, Ont., was born in England in 1944 to a Canadian soldier and a British mother. Her father, born in Scotland, had arrived in Canada in 1926 as a British Home Child. Marion was born out of wedlock, but after her father was wounded in action her parents were able to marry in England before he was repatriated to Canada. She arrived in Canada with her mother in May 1946 and has lived here ever since. When she applied for her first passport in 2003, she was informed to her shock and disbelief that she was not a Canadian citizen. She was told instead to apply for a Permanent Resident Card, and now travels on a British passport.

Tom Kent (1922-2011) served briefly in the 1960s as deputy minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In 2009, asked to comment on one of these cases, he replied: ‘Exclusion from citizenship, in cases such as you describe, is entirely contrary to the philosophy of Canadian citizenship as I have always understood it. The people you know have not been treated fairly. The dismissive attitude of officials, as reported, should be unacceptable to the Minister.’

Jason Kenney - The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has recently stated that the government will take steps to end the automatic acquisition of citizenship by so-called passport babies whose mothers enter Canada solely for the purpose of giving birth to a Canadian child. He
should give equal attention to the plight of those Canadians who by an accident of birth are still excluded from citizenship of the only country they know.

Vancouver Observer: Lost Canadians sue government over discriminatory citizenship

While speaking at a press conference in Surrey, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney stated that the government does not deny citizenship based on age, gender or marital status. Yet these factors are at the heart of problem for "Lost Canadians", who are taking the federal government to court over its refusal to grant citizenship to victims of Canada's discriminatory laws of the past.



The “Lost Canadians ” citizenship case has now officially gone to court. Don Chapman, who has championed the case of thousands of legitimate Canadians who have been denied or stripped of citizenship due to arcane laws – filed for the federal judicial review yesterday for Jackie Scott, a Lost Canadian.

Click here to read original article on the Vancouver Observer website

Daughter of Canadian war veteran, Jackie Scott, denied citizenship

Chapman suggests the Canadian government could forfeit “tens of billions of dollars” over this case, which was eight years in the making.

His main argument centres on gender and age discrimination, both of which are outlawed by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"In a sense, our shared identity is on trial, as is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Chapman argued, noting that the legal battle could have been avoided if the government stopped clinging to outdated laws that denied people based on age, gender and marital status.

Why should this trial matter for Canadian identity? It matters for two reasons. First, the government is basing its exclusion of Lost Canadians on old laws esteeming women's rights beneath those of men. Secondly, it now claims that no one who died in Canada before 1947 was ever a Canadian citizen -- including war veterans.
A sexist and ageist law

The case of Jackie Scott, the daughter of a Canadian war veteran, embodies many problems faced by people involved in this legal battle.

Scott moved to Canada with her mother and father from England when she was several months old and lived for over 60 years as a Canadian: working, raising children, voting and paying taxes.

In 2005, Scott was denied citizenship based on the fact that her parents were unwed on the date of her birth. According to laws of the time, a “legitimate” child was considered property of the father, while an out-of-wedlock child – a “bastard”, so to speak – the sole responsibility of the mother.

Even though her parents married shortly after arriving in Canada, the government dismissed her request for citizenship, using the now-defunct rule for out-of-wedlock children to justify its decision.

Scott soon found that thousands of other Canadians were similarly affected by unjust citizenship laws -- one man, for example, was refused Canadian citizenship because he was born in wedlock to a Canadian mother and American father. Had his mother given birth outside of wedlock, like Scott's mother, he would be a Canadian today.

After extensive lobbying by Chapman, himself a former Lost Canadian, the group forced Bill C-37 into place in 2009, retroactively granting citizenship to those who lost their status. Mysteriously, however, the government only granted citizenship to Lost Canadians born after Jan. 1, 1947 -- excluding elderly applicants like Scott.

If Scott had been just two years younger, she would have been a Canadian citizen. Advocates for the Lost Canadians question how that could not be regarded as discrimination.
Revising history on Canadian citizenship

Undeterred by the 2009 exclusion, Scott applied again for her citizenship, and waited an agonizing two years for a reply from the government. In January 2012, Citizenship and Immigration Canada sent her a rejection letter. Shaking with disbelief, Scott read once again that her case was invalid because she was born out of wedlock, but a new passage caught her attention. It claimed that her father -- an Ontario-born war veteran -- was in fact never a Canadian citizen to begin with.

The rejection letter from the CIC states:

“...at the time you were born in 1945, neither of your parents was a Canadian citizen. Before 1947 persons born in Canada such as your father were considered British Subjects...”

“The government is revising history by denying Jackie her citizenship,” Chapman said.

"In order to get into the League of Nations or the International Court of Justice, you had to be an independent country. For the government to say now that Canadian citizenship never existed before 1947 -- that means that Canada was fraudulently in the League of Nations before that."
Canadian citizenship: not discriminatory?

Curiously, Citizenship and Immigration Ministry have been largely silent on the issue. On Wednesday, the Vancouver Observer asked Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney whether citizenship can be denied based on gender, age or marital status. Without missing a beat, Kenney shook his head and replied:

"No, citizenship isn't and shouldn't be. The Citizenship Act lays out who can become citizens and it is available to anyone ... regardless of marital status or age."

And yet, Scott remains excluded from the same citizenship that millions of foreign-born newcomers to Canada enjoy today, precisely because of her mother's marital status and her own advanced age.

Chapman pointed out that more lawsuits are coming to correct what he considers an historic wrong.

"The government is making this claim for the sole purpose of keeping people out of citizenship," he said. "They either do not know their own laws -- I have a feeling Kenney is so ignorant he doesn't know what he is defending -- or, if they do know the laws, they are purposefully ignoring Supreme Court decisions."

Vancouver Observer: Daughter of Canadian war veteran, Jackie Scott, denied citizenship by Canada. Again.

Click here to read original article on Vancouver Observer website.

Jackie Scott was trembling as she waited for the FedEx envelope from Citizenship and Immigration Canada. When she started reading out the letter that accompanied the citizenship applications that she had sent two years ago, tears sprang to her eyes. She had been denied citizenship. Again.

“It's a horrible feeling to be rejected by the country you believe in, which you believe is your close connection and your identity,” said Scott, speaking over the phone from Arizona, where she now lives due to her non-Canadian status.

Her file, she said, was received by the Citizenship and Immigration office on January 18, 2010 – more than two years ago. She said that the CIC acknowledges that politicians such as West Vancouver MP John Weston have voiced their support for her and amendments to the law are being considered. But considering how long it has taken to get any response, Scott is skeptical that the laws will change anytime soon.

“I'll be dead by that time,” she said with a frustrated sigh.

“That's what they're looking for – natural attrition. They just want us to just go away.”

Even though her case has made little progress in eight years, she said she plans to continue her fight for Canadian citizenship.

"They're discrediting me, they're discrediting my father," she said.

"They're denying me citizenship because my parents weren't married when I was born. That's contrary to all kinds of laws.

"This has to be corrected so that they honour the laws in place."
Excluded from Canadian citizenship

Scott, 66, is one of hundreds of remaining “Lost Canadians,” a term to describe Canadians who are denied citizenship by a series of antiquated and sexist nationality laws which the government amended in 2009, but not completely.

“I'm the only one in my family that doesn't have Canadian citizenship,” she said, her voice shaking.

Scott's citizenship woes began the day she was born -- out of wedlock in England during World War II, the child of a Canadian soldier and a young British woman.

According to the laws of the time, her parents' unwed status made her a 'bastard', the legal product of her British mother with no right to her father's Canadian identity.

Scott's parents did everything so that their daughter could become a registered Canadian after the war. They moved to Canada when she was just two months old, and got married. Her father 'legitimated' her in writing according to the 1921 Ontario Legitimacy Act (a law established to deal with war brides of World War I) and never gave it a second thought.

Scott grew up in Ontario, worked and paid taxes, voted in Canada's federal elections. She even has children and grandchildren who are Canadian. In 2004, after going through her whole life believing she was a Canuck, she learned to her horror, after a rejected passport application, that she was, in fact, completely stateless – and was forced to take a U.S. citizenship through her husband.

Despite fighting an eight-year public battle to have her situation addressed, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) has repeatedly denied her requests for citizenship.
A Canadian-born soldier, but not a citizen

It's not news to her that she has been turned down due to her “bastard” status: this, she has heard before. But today, Scott is angry over the statement accompanying her papers, which suggests that her late father was not in fact Canadian after all.

“My father was born in Toronto in 1911,” Scott bristled. “They're saying the Canada Citizenship Act didn't come in until 1947. So when I was born, he wasn't a Canadian. He fought for Canada. How can they say that?”

She added that he had never set foot outside of Canadian soil except during the war years in Europe, where he met his future British wife.

“They (government officials) don't even know their own laws,” said Don Chapman, an advocate of the Lost Canadians whose lobbying helped push through Bill C-37, giving thousands of Canadians in similar situations citizenship in 2009. For the last two years, he has been advocating on behalf of an estimated five per cent of Lost Canadians – including Scott – who were left behind because Bill C-37 mysteriously excluded people born before 1947.

To illustrate his point, Chapman brings up the case of Joe Taylor, whose high profile dispute with the government led to the creation of Bill C-37.

The resulting document, “Reclaiming citizenship for Canadians – a report on the loss of Canadian citizenship,” noted the problem of stateless “war babies” and recommended that in addition to Taylor, 250 people similarly affected be given a special grant of citizenship.

“Jackie Scott is one of the 250 people,” said Chapman. “Why is the government ignoring its own recommendations?”

Rick Dykstra, Parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, did not respond before the date of publishing, but had said in a previous interview that such applications are being dealt with on a “case-by-case” basis.

According to Chapman, the government has rejected each case of remaining Lost Canadians.

Scott said she plans to fight for a judicial review – she has 30 days to file her case -- but is troubled by the time it has taken for a response to her application.

CBC: Interviews with Curt Petrovich, Joe Taylor and War Bride Eswyn Lyster about Lost Canadians

Three interviews about Lost Canadians with CBC journalist Curt Petrovich of CBC Television.

Click here to listen the interviews on line.

Interview One

Interview Two - Canada Day 2006

Interview Three With Joe Taylor and War Bride Eswyn Lyster- July 6, 2006, The World At Six