Jack Babcock, Lost and Last Surviving Canadian Veteran of WWI, dies in Spokane, Washington

On Thursday, Jack Babcock, Canada's last surviving veteran of World War One, passed away at age 109 in Spokane, Washington where he lived since moving to the United States in the 1920s.


This interview was recorded in May 2008, after Jack Babcock's Canadian citizenship was restored through the intervention of Canada's Minister of Veterans Affairs, Greg Thompson.

Jack Babcock was a Lost Canadian, having only received his citizenship on May 8, 2008 after a mad scramble by federal politicians, including then Minister of Veterans Affairs, Greg Thompson, when it became apparent that the last Canadian born veteran of WWI was actually an American!

Yes, Jack Babcock was an American, even though he was born in Canada. In fact, Jack was never technically a “Canadian” until May, 2008, because when he was born in 1900 there was no such thing as Canadian citizenship. Yes, we have always called ourselves “Canadians” and considered ourselves “Canadian born”, but we were all British subjects until the introduction of the Canadian Citizenship Act on January 1, 1947.

So when Jack Babcock took an oath of US Citizenship in 1946 he became an American, and when he received a special grant of citizenship in May 2008, he was not becoming a “citizen again” as most media outlets reported. Rather, he was becoming Canadian for the first time.

In the past, when we raised this issue with reporters, the response was that the citizenship issue was such a minor technicality that it didn’t really matter. And, besides, it takes away from a good story.

It may seem like a technicality, but it’s technicalities like that which have worked against numerous Canadian born persons, including veterans of World War Two, who have been told they are not citizens. They certainly don’t get the same treatment as Jack Babcock, and the reasons are abundantly clear.

In 2006, the Dominion Institute launched an on line petition to hold a state funeral for the last veteran of the First World War. Ninety-thousand Canadians responded in three weeks and on November 21 the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion endorsing the move.

By May, 2007, Jack Babcock was the last remaining Canadian born veteran. In April 2008, sensing the urgency of the situation, Greg Thompson paid a special visit to Babcock at his Spokane apartment and asked Jack if he’d like to become a Canadian citizen. Jack said "Yes” and in a two sentence, hand-written note he made it official.

Twenty-one days later, Jack Babcock was a Canadian citizen for the first time in his life and Stephen Harper breathed a sigh of relief. Imagine the embarrassment if Canada’s last veteran of WWI was actually an American!

While we are happy Jack Babcock finally became a Canadian citizen, we are saddened that so many other Canadian born persons have not, including Guy Valliere, a veteran of WWII who died last February disenfranchised.

It was Guy’s fervent wish that he die a Canadian citizen, a promise made by then Minister of Citizenship, Diane Finley. Sadly, it didn't happen, despite the gargantuan efforts of many people, including Members of Parliament from the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois caucuses who supported Guy in his struggle.

At his funeral, Guy was eulogized as “a man forgotten by his country but acknowledged by the wish to be Canadian.”

Then there is Vancouver-born Kathleen Freemont, who served with the Women’s Division of the RCAF during WWII. She is still not being recognized and at age 88 chances are she may never be.

Marcel Gelinas is another Canadian born veteran of WWII whose citizenship is not recognized. He’s also 88 and time is of the essence.

How does the Canadian government reconcile such different – one might say unequal - treatment of Canadian born citizens? No doubt, we can't all be Jack Babcocks and have the Minister of Veterans Affairs personally visit us with an offer of citizenship. But what part of the word "EQUAL" does the Canadian government not understand?

It behooves Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to treat all Canadian born persons the same, especially veterans. After all, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that makes it illegal to discriminate, not to mention a number of United Nations Conventions on Human Rights to which Canada is a signatory.

We believe that the special treatment afforded to Jack Babcock, however deserving, should also have been given to Guy Valliere before he died and to WWII veterans Kathleen Freemont and Marcel Gelinas before they are gone too.

After all, equal is equal, and there is no other way around it.

Gov't Discriminates Against Women: Letter to Ruth Wiseman, Citizenship and Immigration Officer for Kasey Neal

Kasey Neal is a two and a half year old girl who is being denied her right to Canadian citizenship because the Department of Citizenship and Immigration permits discrimination on the basis of gender.

In a nutshell, if Kasey's Canadian grandparent was a man, Kasey could become Canadian. But because Kasey's Canadian grandparent is a woman, she is not allowed to become a Canadian.

If it walks like a duck and acts like a duck, I'd say it's a duck, wouldn't you? Looks like discrimination based on gender to me and let the Department of Citizenship and Immigration say it isn't so. They won't, because they know it's true. What I want to know is when will the Department stop discriminating against women?
___

February 7, 2010

Ruth:

The Supreme Court was unanimous in Benner vs. Canada 1997, and the decision still remains in force. It has not been overturned, nor has the notwithstanding clause been implemented by Parliament to change that decision. Once again, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that discriminating in citizenship based on gender was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and thus unconstitutional. Nothing has changed, Benner remains in force and the acceptance or denial of citizenship based only on gender is illegal and contrary to the Charter. By denying Kasey Neal citizenship you are defying the Supreme Court of Canada.

This case will go to judicial review if you deny Kasey citizenship. Also, expect a class-action lawsuit and lots of hearings before Parliament whereby the bureaucrats will have to explain their actions. I strongly suggest you not go there.

I respectfully ask that Kasey is deemed to be a Canadian citizen from birth. At the very least she should be offered a section 5.4 citizenship grant.

Let me summarize:

My nephew is Kenneth Neal; and previously he was denied Canadian citizenship via lineage on the basis that his Canadian parent, Ruth Pina happens to be female. This is in violation of charter rights as well as the Benner decision. Ken's citizenship has been subsequently restored by the CIC, and it was deemed to have been continuous since his birth in 1971. Now his daughter, Kasey Neal, has been denied citizenship on the grounds that her father was not a citizen at the time of her birth, notwithstanding that the CIC has already acknowledged that her father was in fact a citizen at the time of Kasey's birth. As such, the CIC continues to perpetuate violations of charter rights and the Benner decision in its gender-biased determinations of citizenship, even in the case of Ken's daughter, Kasey.

I cannot be more clear, I expect CIC to recognize the citizenship of Kasey Neal. Let me end by quoting several politicians, including the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of State (Status of Women) and finally the Governor General:


"The actions of our government are guided by the principal that hate and discrimination have no place in a civilized society." - Prime Minister Stephen Harper

"We must ensure that women are not discriminated against." - The Honourable Helena Guergis, Minister of State (Status of Women)

"I know that the government and other parties have a commitment to look at all legislation through the lens of its fairness to women. This clearly fails that test--big time." - The Honourable Diane Ablonczy, Minister of State (Seniors)

And one final quote, from Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, "I have always thought that ignoring the plight of women is not only an inexcusable lack of responsibility, but also an unjustifiable crime against humanity."

Don Chapman for Kasey Neal

Case made for Canada's war brides

History: Citizenship denial suggested for inclusion in new human rights museum

Published Friday February 5th, 2010

Click here to read original article in the Telegraph Journal
A1
Adam Huras
Telegraph-Journal

MONCTON - A New Brunswick historian is lobbying for the "worst and most-hidden secret" in Canadian human rights history to figure prominently in the country's newest national museum.


Melynda Jarrett has now delivered what she says is the hidden tale of how war brides and their children have been denied Canadian citizenship, despite living nearly their entire lives in Canada.

A panel that will help determine the first exhibits in the Canadian Museum for Human Rights was in Moncton on Thursday in the last stop of a national tour seeking ideas on what should be included.

"We would like the story of the denial of citizenship to the lost Canadians and, in particular, the war bride children and the war brides that have been stripped of their citizenship, to be part of the museum exhibits," Jarrett said. "It's an untold story of human rights violations that needs to be exposed.

"My role is to explain that (situation) as an embarrassment to Canada's reputation as supposedly a country that respects human rights."

Jarrett, who is also an author and expert on war brides, said there are thousands of war brides and their children that arrived in Canada immediately after the Second World War, prior to the Canadian Citizenship Act of Jan. 1, 1947.

As a consequence, some children of war brides were not registered as citizens.
Roughly 48,000 young women who met and married Canadian servicemen during the Second World War emigrated to Canada in the years immediately afterwards.

Many of their children are just now finding out that they are not registered as citizens as they apply for old age pension.
Jarrett said thousands of people are now stuck in limbo as they search for half-a-century-old proof they have been Canadian all along.

Many cannot leave the country for fear of not being allowed to return.

"This is not to say that the horrible treatment of aboriginal peoples, sexual discrimination, exploitation of children and other human rights issue are not worthy, because they all are," Jarrett said. "But this is another form of virtually unknown discrimination that isn't being heard.

"But behind the curtain is this nefarious discrimination occurring against, of all people, the children of Canada's cultural icons, the Canadian war brides."
Jarrett was accompanied by Zoe Boone, a Scottish war bride from Aberdeen who came to Canada on a Trans-Canada Airlines flight in 1946 and lives on the Tobique.

She was easily granted Canadian citizenship shortly after moving to Canada.

"I was a lucky one," she said. "But I'm here to tell the story of those who now weren't."

The Canadian Museum for Human Rights has held sessions across Canada over the past year to provide all Canadians with the opportunity to help develop the content of the museum.

Located in Winnipeg, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is Canada's newest national museum with a mission to enhance the understanding of human rights and to promote respect for others.

"People often think that museums focus on the past, they are full of artifacts and stories that are complete," said Angela Currie, a spokeswoman for the museum. "This is an ideas museum which looks at the past as well as the present and future of human rights issues that effect Canadians today."

Delegations pushing for the museum to include the expulsion of the Acadians, the rights battles of disabled people and language rights issues were also represented Thursday in Moncton.

A discussion open to the public was also held Thursday night. Those who missed the sessions can submit their museum ideas online at humanrightsmuseum.ca.
The museum will open in 2012, becoming the country's first national museum more than 40 years.

"To me, the struggle for Canadian citizenship by people who have always considered themselves Canadian is the worst and most hidden secret of our past and present," Jarrett said. "This can no longer stay hidden."

78 Year Old Canadian Not a Citizen: No status, no health card

The daughter of an elderly man who has lived in Canada for 78 years received a shock when she moved him to Quebec - he is not officially a Canadian citizen, so he has no medical coverage

By ANNE SUTHERLAND, The Gazette

Click here to read the original article in the Montreal Gazette.

Howard Webb lived 78 of his 89 years in Nova Scotia, the son of a Canadian mother and a British father.

He has a social insurance number, paid income taxes and received medical care under Nova Scotia's health care plan.

It was a rude awakening, then, when his daughter found out that her dad isn't considered a Canadian citizen and was therefore not eligible for Quebec medicare after he moved to Pointe Claire to be with her in February.

"The Régie (de l'assurance maladie du Québec) told me I needed a passport or Canadian birth certificate to prove he's Canadian; they were very rigid on this point," Christina Guimond said.

"Up to this point, we had never questioned his citizenship - he was Canadian." According to Julie Bilodeau, spokesperson for the RAMQ, the conditions for admissibility for a medicare card are proof of residence in Quebec - a lease, etc. - and some document that identifies the individual as a person authorized to live in Canada.

"That can be a passport, a citizenship certificate or a birth certificate," Bilodeau specified.

Webb's parents were married in Nova Scotia, but Webb was born in Massachusetts in 1920. After his father died in 1931 at the height of the Depression, he and his mother, a Canadian citizen, moved back to Nova Scotia to live with his grandmother and other family members.

He was married for 53 years and fathered four children with his wife, Pearl.

When she fell ill in 2008, was hospitalized and unable to speak, a son who lives in British Columbia flew to Nova Scotia and placed Webb in a retirement home.

Guimond moved him to Montreal in February, shortly before Pearl died. Webb was in poor health and miserable in the retirement home, his daughter said.

"He was crying on the phone, 'Come and get me,' " she said.

His Nova Scotia health care coverage continued for a month after he left the province, but since April Webb has had no medical insurance.

Guimond said she was stunned by the RAMQ's strict rules, and has encountered roadblock after roadblock in her quest to have this matter settled.

"My father never travelled so he had never applied for a passport," she said.

Before 1947, all Canadians were British citizens. Canadian citizenship was created in 1947.

At this point, Webb should have signed papers to reaffirm his Canadian status, but no one had known this was necessary, his daughter said.

Guimond had a difficult job finding her father's birth certificate and her grandparents' 1916 Nova Scotia marriage records to prove her father's status.

With the help of an assistant in the offices of her MP, Francis Scarpaleggia, Guimond applied in August to the federal Citizenship and Immigration offices to get citizenship papers for her father. The process can take 15 months.

Jacqueline Roby, a spokesperson for Citizenship and Immigration Canada, said in cases where there are health concerns, papers can be expedited, sometimes as quickly as within a week.

"Our door is never closed in cases of urgency," Roby said.

Once he has papers making him officially Canadian, Webb will be issued a medicare card, Bilodeau said.

Guimond is concerned the delay might prove too long.

Her father was diagnosed with cognitive impairment and subsequently with Alzheimer's last spring, and his medicine costs $250 a month. Guimond was told she'll be reimbursed when her father's card is issued.

"The anxiety and worry is that he'll trip and fall and possibly die before he gets a card," Guimond said.

"I don't know why the Régie is so adamant, they could be more flexible. Why put an 89-year-old man through this? It serves no purpose."

- - -

'Lost Canadians' number in the thousands

Women who married Canadian soldiers during the Second World War, and any children their union produced, were promised the same citizenship as their husbands by the Canadian government. What many of them did not know was that to obtain citizenship, they had to sign papers to reaffirm their Canadian status - an act that Federal Court Judge Luc Martineau ruled in 2006 was unacceptable since failure to sign those papers stripped them of their citizenship - often without their knowledge.

In 2007, Barry Edmonston, a sociology professor at the University of Victoria, told members of Parliament that an estimated 200,000 people are considered "lost Canadians," stripped of their citizenship between 1947 and 1977.

Studying census figures, Edmonston estimated there are 115,000 people living in Canada who fall into the "lost Canadian" category, and 85,000 living outside Canada.

Of those living in Canada, the largest group includes those born abroad with at least one parent who is Canadian.

In many cases, those born before 1977 are not Canadian citizens because nobody told their parents their birth had to be registered in Canada within two years.

asutherland@ thegazette.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

Thanks for the update! Audrey Macklin's "chance to do the right thing" for citizenship rights lost when she chooses to ignore Lost Canadians

University of Toronto professor Audrey Macklin at a press conference for Canadian citizen and Guantanamo Bay detainee, Omar Khadr.
Source http://allan.lissner.net

Robert Addington is one of the Lost Canadians' staunch supporters, having attended most, if not all, the Parliamentary and Senate Committee hearings on Lost Canadian Citizenship when Bill S-2 and Bill C-37 were making their way through the system over the course of the past five years.

Robert is also an inveterate "Letter to the Editor" writer and he follows up on articles which touch upon citizenship themes by writing to editors, journalists, op-ed contributors and, in this case, Professor Audrey Macklin, a law professor at the University of Toronto who just happens to be co-counsel for the intervenors in the Khadr case which was recently heard - and lost - before the Supreme Court of Canada.


Professor Macklin co-authored an op-ed piece in today's Globe and Mail, calling upon the Prime Minister of Canada to "do the right thing" and bring Omar Khadr home. Click here to read the original Globe and Mail article. In it, she and her two co-authors also described the current political / judicial state of affairs in the most chilling way:

When the highest court in the land advises the government that the government is breaking the law, and affirms that a request for repatriation would be an appropriate remedy for that breach, a government has two choices: A government that operates according to the rule of law will undertake to remedy the wrong because it understands that the government is not above the law. A government that operates according to the rule of men will calculate that if no votes will be gained by obeying the law, and some votes might even be lost, then the law deserves no respect unless and until backed up by the force of a court order. There are people who think it is okay to break the law if they can get away with it. We should be deeply worried if our government guided itself according to the same moral logic.


Perhaps sensing that he had an ally in Professor Macklin, Robert Addington picked up a pen (or keyboard in this case) and shot off a friendly, informative note to her in support of her defense of Omar Khadr and comparing the flagrant violation of his rights as a citizen to the way Lost Canadians have been treated since 1947. (As it turns out, this is his second letter to Professor Macklin supporting her stance on the Omar Khadr case).

What is interesting about Robert's letter to Professor Macklin is how, after supporting her defense of Omar Khadr and making a cogent argument in defense of Lost Canadians who are similarly being denied their citizenship rights - as is Mr. Khadr - all Prof. Macklin can say is: "Thanks for the update."

One would think that Professor Macklin would jump at the opportunity to expand her base of support to include another group of Canadians who are also being disenfranchised, but apparently not.

It's the same old story all over again

Unfortunately, her response is no big suprrise to me. I personally spoke to Prof. Macklin in 2005 and got a similar brush off. It seems when the "rights" under discussion are those of Canadian born citizens, children born of female Canadian citizens, World War Two War Brides, their children and grandchildren, Mennonites, Border Babies, Military Brats, and Canadian veterans who risked their lives during the Second World War in defense of Canada, the "rights" to Canadian citizenship don't matter.

How sad.

Here's Robert Addington's letter, and Prof. Macklin's response:
___

February 2, 2010

Dear Professor Macklin:

Further to our correspondence of last March, I fully agree with your article in today’s Globe and Mail. Omar Khadr belongs to an obnoxious and deservedly unpopular family but, as you have pointed out before, citizenship is not a popularity contest.

I also want to bring you up to date on the Lost Canadians: people who are excluded from citizenship or are having difficulty claiming it, because of obscure technicalities in the citizenship law.

The passage of Bill C-37, which came into force last April 17th, was by any standard a remarkable political achievement for a loosely-organized group with little political clout. Since April 17th, former Lost Canadians have been claiming their citizenship and some of those living abroad are planning to take up residence in Canada. On the negative side, we still have about 80 people who are excluded (sadly, we had a couple of deaths in 2009). These are the known cases; there may well be more. (A back-bench Conservative M.P. has told me there may be as many as 200.) Among them are out-of-wedlock War Bride children, and Mennonites born in Mexico or Paraguay who are excluded because their parents’ and in some cases their grandparents’ religious marriages outside Canada were not recognized by the civil law.

The Minister continues to ignore us. He is said to have a list of 18 priorities, none of which has anything to do with citizenship. Last Oct. 22 a small group of Lost Canadians and supporters (I among them) gathered in Ottawa for a news conference and a demonstration (in heavy rain) in front of the Parliament Buildings. To view Terry Milewski’s report for The National, click below (note the Minister’s dismissive comment):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smjrQPLeWkU.

In this video clip, Don Chapman, the chief advocate for the Lost Canadians, speaks about the remaining 81 cases (You will note in particular his remarks on the continuing discrimination against women in our citizenship law.):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfrYNc5A5RQ&feature=related.....

Jacqueline Scott is a War Bride child who is excluded from citizenship solely because she was born out of wedlock, even though her parents later married. To read her story, click below:

http://www.canadianwarbrides.com/scott-jackie.asp.

We’re also finding War Bride children who were born in wedlock but are still having difficulty claiming their citizenship and now, as they turn 65, collecting their Old Age Security Pension. Below are two recent cases: one here in London, the other in New Brunswick.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2009/11/12/11718701-sun.html

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/904150

Both cases are sadly typical of the shabby treatment some War Bride children have received over the years. There will be more such cases in 2010 as another age cohort of War Bride children turns 65. The problem with this group that the Canadian Citizenship Act 1946 (s. 4) gave them the status of ‘natural-born Canadian citizens’, which to me means they are deemed born in Canada, but because they were in fact born outside Canada they don’t have Canadian birth certificates. Those who have never travelled outside North America have never had to prove their citizenship. Now, 63 years after the fact, they are being told to apply for Certificates of Canadian Citizenship. On the face of it this is not unreasonable, but the required supporting documents from other countries can be expensive and difficult to obtain.

I believe the government has made a political calculation that this problem will eventually solve itself by natural attrition. (‘Oh well, they’ll all be dead in a few years, so who cares?’) What a shabby, cynical way to make citizenship policy or indeed any public policy.

We’re still pursuing the political route but are also preparing legal arguments for a possible class-action suit in the Federal Court. If that happens, the Minister will find himself defending the indefensible. He may win legally, but not politically.. Either way, the egg will be on his face, not ours.

I know of no other democratic country that has treated a comparable group in this insulting, unconscionable and politically indefensible way. Why Canada?

Yours truly,

Robert Addington

___ Her Response ____

From: Audrey Macklin
Sent: 2-Feb-10 10:26 AM
To: Robert ADDINGTON
Subject: RE: A chance to do the right thing


Thanks for the update!

Khadr case shows "The government must act when the land's highest court declares it is breaking the law"

Audrey Macklin, Diana Juricevic and Cheryl Milne
A chance to do the right thing

The government must act when the land's highest court declares it is breaking the law in the Omar Khadr case

Audrey Macklin, Diana Juricevic and Cheryl Milne

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published on Monday, Feb. 01, 2010

Click here to read original article in the Globe and Mail

As you read this, the Canadian government is violating the rights of Omar Khadr.


In a ruling last Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada declared unanimously that the Canadian government is violating Mr. Khadr's right to life, liberty and security under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court denounced the use of torture in the form of sleep deprivation by U.S. authorities against Mr. Khadr when he was 15 years old in order to soften him up for interrogations conducted by Canadian authorities. It found that the rights violation continues because information obtained during illegal interrogations in 2003 and 2004 can still be used against Mr. Khadr in U.S. proceedings.

The court declared unequivocally that Canada breached “the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects” and that those breaches remain ongoing until the government provides a remedy. The court acknowledged that a request for repatriation would be a logical remedy that could vindicate Mr. Khadr's rights, but declined to order the government to make the request.

Does this mean that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has won the court's permission to continue to do nothing? The answer is no.

The court declined to exercise its authority to grant the remedy out of concern about the incomplete record before it, and the limits of the judiciary's institutional competence to direct the executive in foreign relations. Reasonable people may disagree about the wisdom of this deference, but it should not be misunderstood as permission for the Prime Minister to ignore the court's declaration. The court is giving Mr. Harper a chance to do the right thing, not absolving him from accountability.

When the highest court in the land advises the government that the government is breaking the law, and affirms that a request for repatriation would be an appropriate remedy for that breach, a government has two choices: A government that operates according to the rule of law will undertake to remedy the wrong because it understands that the government is not above the law. A government that operates according to the rule of men will calculate that if no votes will be gained by obeying the law, and some votes might even be lost, then the law deserves no respect unless and until backed up by the force of a court order. There are people who think it is okay to break the law if they can get away with it. We should be deeply worried if our government guided itself according to the same moral logic.

The Canadian government must issue a remedy when the highest court in the land rules it has violated someone's rights. The court states its expectation that the declaration will provide a “legal framework for the executive to exercise its functions and to consider what actions to take in respect of Mr. Khadr, in conformity with the Charter.” The court has effectively ruled that doing nothing does not conform to the Charter: The government has a legal obligation to act. What if it fails to act, or acts in bad faith?

In declining to mandate the executive to take specific steps, the court indicated that the “prudent course at this point” was to give the executive the opportunity to formulate a remedy that fulfills its Charter obligations. However, if the government spurns the opportunity, we may arrive at a different point. A declaration, once issued by a court, is always open to enforcement. Should the violation of Mr. Khadr's rights go unremedied, the Canadian government will continue to be in violation of the law. It will remain open for Mr. Khadr's lawyers to return to court at a later date and renew a request for a remedy on the grounds that the circumstances animating the court's deference have changed, and judicial deference is no longer warranted.

Respect for the rule of law would lead the Prime Minister to do what Britain, Australia, France, Germany, Belgium and other states have already successfully done. The Prime Minister should request the United States to repatriate Mr. Khadr under conditions that reassure the U.S. President and the Canadian public that Mr. Khadr will be treated justly in Canada. Indeed, proposals about how to create those conditions have already been submitted by counsel for Mr. Khadr and others before a parliamentary subcommittee.

The integrity of our parliamentary democracy depends on all state institutions – Parliament, executive and judiciary – acting within and according to the law. Regardless of one's views about Mr. Khadr, all Canadians have a deep interest in a government that abides by the rule of law. That message must be communicated to the Prime Minister, because in our parliamentary system, neither he nor his government can flout the law.

Audrey Macklin is a law professor at the University of Toronto and co-counsel for the intervenors. Diana Juricevic is acting director of the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto's Faculty of Law. Cheryl Milne is executive director of the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights at the University of Toronto's Faculty of Law. The program and centre joined forces with Human Rights Watch to intervene in the appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Meantime, War Bride Children can't get their citizenship: More than 300 people linked to suspected case of citizenship fraud

Click here to read the full story in the Globe and Mail

Three months ago, I met with Joe Friesen, the new "citizenship" reporter with the Globe and Mail and I told him about this issue of citizenship fraud in Mississauga. I see he finally got the story out.

I also told him about the Lost Canadians, yet on that subject he remains silent. Nobody in the press is holding the Minister of Citizenship and Prime Minister Stephen Harper accountable for their treatment of Lost Canadians, but when it comes to citizenship fraud, reporters like Joe Friesen seem to have plenty of time on their hands.

Here's a question I'd like a reporter to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration:

Jason Kenney accepts Hatian children to be adopted in Canada (as he should), and the kids will be Canadian citizens in about six weeks. Yet Patrick Chandler, a Canadian citizen, fathered a child (Rachael Chandler) who is now stateless (against all international law) and Jason Kenney refuses to recognize Rachel. Patrick, a Canadian citizen, has less rights than non-Canadians. Does this make any sense whatsoever?


A third group of Haitian adoptees arrived in Canada Saturday

Citizenship Act creates a 'stateless' child

_____

JOE FRIESEN

From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published on Monday, Feb. 01, 2010 12:00AM EST

Click here to read the full story in the Globe and Mail


More than 300 people who claimed to live at the same address in Mississauga are being investigated by the RCMP in what police suspect may be a massive case of citizenship fraud.

The case revolves around an address located in the same building as Palestine House, a Mississauga centre that offers language classes and settlement services to new immigrants and also acts as an advocate for Palestinian and Arab causes.

Citizenship judges were briefed on the file late last year and were warned to look for large numbers of immigration applicants claiming the same address, The Globe and Mail has learned.

The RCMP would neither confirm nor deny the investigation.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney didn't comment on this case specifically, but said he met recently with immigration enforcement officials who briefed him on the issue of citizenship fraud. He said it's a matter of increasing concern.

"There are a number of ongoing police investigations into this practice of people abroad hiring consultants to establish for them evidence of residency in Canada, to meet the three-year residency requirement, when, in point of fact, they are often living abroad most or all of that time," Mr. Kenney said.

Pay scales in foreign countries that vary according to nationality are acting as a new kind of catalyst for this kind of fraud, he added. In places such as Dubai, for example, an employee with a Canadian passport can earn a substantial premium compared to those from poorer nations.

"The notion is that there's a more costly labour market in Western countries. If these people can get a Western passport then they move up the salary scale," Mr. Kenney said.

No one actually resides at Palestine House, a school-house type of building with classrooms on the ground floor and an upper floor where office space is leased to a range of small businesses. Citizenship and Immigration Canada gave the centre $2.4-million for English-language training in a multi-year agreement last April.

A building manager at Palestine House, who spoke on condition he wouldn't be named, said his understanding is that the investigation is connected to a rented office suite on the upper floor. He stressed that those offices are leased by private entities and are not connected to Palestine House by anything other than a shared roof.

The building manager said he found brown government envelopes that came through the mail addressed to people who didn't live or work at Palestine House. He said the envelopes contained government cheques for the national child benefit, but the recipients weren't actually living in Canada. It was shortly after he noticed this discrepancy that he was paid a visit by the RCMP. That was in late 2007.

He said the person who was the subject of the police inquiries no longer has an office in the building and hasn't been seen for more than two years.

It's not known how many of the 300 or so citizenship applicants who claimed the Palestine House building as an address actually gained citizenship, or whether those applications are now under review. It's possible some were living in Canada and making genuine applications but used Palestine House as a mailing address.

In order to become a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident must prove he or she has lived in Canada for three of the four years preceding their application. The benefits of obtaining Canadian citizenship are considerable for the applicants, including access to subsidized health care and university tuition among many others.

Canada leads by example: Jordan pulls citizenship from Palestinians: rights group

An all too familiar story emenating out of Jordan today. Those fine upholders of human rights in the Middle East must be following the lead of Jason Kenney, our Citizenship and Immigration Minister, whose example of denying citizenship to Canadian born persons, their children and grandchildren is like a "How To" guide on discrimination.

After reading this article, I actually talked to the people at Human Rights Watch about the Lost Canadians. Their response: We don't do a lot of work in Canada.

Well I guess you don't!! I had to do a double take on that one. Excuse me Human Rights Watch, but have you bothered to listen to the stories of the Lost Canadian lately? Human Rights Watch better start looking at Canada because there are thousands of people just like these Jordanians who have been told the same thing by Canada's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE.

Mon Feb 1, 8:24 AM

Click to read original story on Huma Rights Watch

AMMAN (AFP) - Jordan has revoked citizenship from nearly 3,000 Jordanians of Palestinian origin in recent years and should put a stop to the practice, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in a report released Monday.

HRW said 2,732 Palestinians were stripped of their Jordanian nationality between 2004 and 2008.

"Jordan is playing politics with the basic rights of thousands of its citizens," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director of the US-based group that released the 60-page report at a news conference in Amman.

"Officials are denying entire families the ability to lead normal lives with the sense of security that most citizens of a country take for granted," the report said.

The practice continued in 2009, denying many people basic citizenship rights such as access to education and health care, HRW said.

"We believe the total and actual number of those who have been stripped of their nationality is much bigger," Christoph Wilcke, a HRW researcher, told reporters.

In some cases, one person's nationality was withdrawn involuntarily, while that of a sibling in identical circumstances was not, the report said.

In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and granted all residents Jordanian nationality.

But in 1988, Amman severed legal and administrative ties to the West Bank, "relinquishing claims to sovereignty there and withdrawing Jordanian nationality from all Palestinians who resided in the West Bank at the time," the report said.

"Other Jordanians of West Bank origin, but who were not living in the West Bank at the time, were not affected and kept their Jordanian nationality. Over the last decade and more, though, Jordan has arbitrarily withdrawn its nationality from thousands of these citizens of West Bank origin," the report said.

Jordan, where a significant proportion of the nearly six million inhabitants are of Palestinian origin, has said the measure was a means to counter any Israeli plans to transfer Palestinians of the West Bank to the kingdom, according to HRW.

"One day you're Jordanian, and the next you've been stripped of your rights as a citizen in your own country," Whitson said.