By JENNY UECHI
The Japan Times On Line
March 17, 2009
Citizenship can mean the difference between "belonging" and being just a visitor. Some people endure years of waiting in line and filing applications in a bid to change citizenship; others, by virtue of their birthplace and familial ties, begin their lives with the opportunity to be citizens of two or more countries. Citizenship can offer a free ticket out of a crisis, or even be a matter of life and death, as demonstrated by the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last year, in which attackers reportedly targeted those with British or American passports.
Given the importance of the issue, some Canadian expats are disturbed at changes being made to citizenship requirements under Bill C-37, An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act.
Few people seem to have received any information about it, and what little media coverage there has been on the bill has focused on the fact that it restores citizenship to some 200,000 or so "Lost Canadians" — war wives, children of soldiers stationed overseas — who were stripped of their citizenship by the Citizenship Act of 1947. What expats aren't being told is that the amendment also includes some sweeping changes that will affect many of the estimated 2.7 million Canadians currently living outside the country.
As of April 17, when the bill goes into effect, citizenship by descent will be limited to the first generation outside Canada. For example, if a Canadian citizen born in the U.S. goes on to have a child in Japan, that child will not automatically be granted Canadian citizenship, as would be the case now.
Allan Nichols, executive director of the Canadian Expat Association, says many members of his organization were "horrified" at the bill's implications for their families, and wonders why so few Canadians were consulted about the amendment.
"The CIC (Citizenship and Immigration Canada) really dropped the ball on this," he said by phone from Victoria, British Columbia. "Nobody was aware of these changes. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has chapters in every major city in the world, and none of them received notices about this."
Nichols, whose children were born in Japan, says the new laws don't take into account the reality of Canada's highly mobile, multicultural workforce. "(My children) were born to mobile parents, and there's a strong chance — I encourage it — that they're going to be working abroad," he says. "During this time, you might meet someone special, and you might decide to have children with this person."
The new rules (which can be viewed at www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/rules-citizenship.asp ) are confusing at best: Nichols says that even people at CIC initially gave him contradictory information about the bill, saying the new rules would also apply to children of diplomats (the act states that children of diplomats and members of the Canadian forces would be exempt).
While the law automatically grants citizenship to some Canadians, it imposes new regulations on those with children born outside the country. As of April 17, 2009, first-generation Canadians born abroad will no longer be able to pass down citizenship to children born outside Canada (unless they are working abroad for the government or the armed forces at the time of the child's birth).
Further, second-generation Canadians born after Feb. 14, 1977 (the date when major updates to the Canadian Citizenship Act took place) could even stand to lose their citizenship if they were born to a parent who was not registered as a "Canadian born abroad" until after that date.
"As an organization, we have nothing against restoring citizenship to the Lost Canadians," Nichols explains. "But the government seems to have taken this and run off in a completely different direction."
This "different direction" — the tightening of citizenship requirements — is believed to be part of government efforts to filter out "Canadians of convenience" who were at the center of controversy during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war. At the height of the conflict, Canada evacuated an estimated 15,000 passport holders from the war zone. Many Canadians were incensed to learn that although over $80 million in taxpayer dollars were spent on the rescue mission, nearly half the evacuees returned to Lebanon shortly after the ceasefire. Articles in Maclean's magazine and The National Post suggested that many foreigners with Canadian citizenship had little commitment to Canada, and viewed their passport as a get-out-of-jail-free card when troubles arose in their country of residence.
Not long after the controversy, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to review the citizenship laws. In the years that followed, Bill C-37 quietly slipped under the media radar until it received royal assent and passed into law last year.
Citizenship regulations in Canada are seen as lenient compared to those of many other industrialized countries. In the U.K., citizenship by descent can only be passed down for one generation. In the U.S., meanwhile, a child of a foreign-born American can obtain citizenship if the parent has lived in the U.S. for at five years, two of which must be after reaching 14 years of age.
Up to now, Canada's policy for transferring citizenship has resembled that of nations such as Greece and Italy, which allow citizenship to be passed down by jus sanguinis (right of blood) for three generations. Moreover, unlike their American counterparts, Canadians living abroad are not obliged to file taxes, making them all the more prone to criticism about enjoying the perks of citizenship without bearing the responsibility that accompanies it.
The CIC in Ottawa reassures expats that they need not panic about the new law. "No one who is a Canadian citizen immediately before April 17, 2009, will lose their citizenship as a result of the new law," writes Jae Won Chung, manager of the Citizenship Program Delivery.
While no one would lose citizenship, second-generation Canadians born after February 14, 1977, need to take steps to "retain" their citizenship by the time they turn 28 (those turning 28 prior to April 17 are encouraged to call the CIC).
Second-generation Canadians who apply to retain citizenship would have to prove substantial ties to the country, such as going to school for several years in Canada after age 14, working in a government post, or being able to demonstrate enough knowledge of Canada's language and history to pass a citizenship test. Nichols stresses that this retention process is only offered to second-generation Canadians born before the law goes into effect in April, and will not be applicable to those born afterward, regardless of their ties to Canada.
Some expats don't agree that the new amendments are asking too much of overseas Canadians. Sheri Love Yasue, who recently completed a thesis on immigration and assimilation in Japan and the West at Nanzan University in Nagoya, feels that Canada can afford to be stricter about its citizenship laws.
"One of the main problems, I think, for Canada is that we give out our citizenship so liberally," she says. "I've noticed that Americans need to jump through a few more hoops, such as their parents having to live in the U.S. for five years, whereas, for example, with my kids Canada just gives them citizenship." She also points out that 70 of the world's 100 most populous nations require their citizens to renounce citizenship of other countries, whereas Canada still allows dual and multiple citizenship.
Yasue says that although she passed down citizenship to her children because she eventually intends to move back to Canada, she would be able to accept more stringent requirements for foreign-born children to obtain citizenship. "It would take more time and energy, but I think that it is better for the Canadian government to say that if you're going to pay taxes and be a resident, then you can be Canadian."
"People want everything. They want to be residents here (in Japan) for 20, 30 years, but they also want their kids to be Canadian," she says. "I think they may be asking just a little bit too much."
Many current expats, however, argue that a wide network of overseas Canadians is a boon to the country, and that the new bill would deprive many children of the only national identity they have.
"Canadians living abroad that I know are among the biggest fans of Canada," says Patricia Bader-Johnston, representative director and CEO of Silverbirch Associates and president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce Japan Chapter. "They constantly promote Canadian trade, culture and education. I cannot imagine a downside to maintaining this connection."
While the CCCJ has no official position on the issue, she personally opposes the amendment, which she says would needlessly "disenfranchise" expat Canadians through their children and grandchildren. Referring to her own Japan-born children, she says that Canadian citizenship is an integral part of their identity, not merely a matter of convenience.
"They will never be seen as Japanese no matter how long they live here," she says. "Without their Canadian identity, they would be truly rootless."
With the new law just a month away from going into effect, millions of Canadians will be looking at ways to pass their citizenship down to the next generation. While some will welcome the changes, others may think twice about having a family overseas, or even settling abroad at all. Fewer people would abuse the citizenship laws, perhaps, but less people would know enough about the country to want to become Canadian in the first place, critics argue.
Bader-Johnston feels that a country like Canada would lose an "incredible generation of ambassadors" as a result of the amendment. Without the social and business networks built by expats, she says, "Canada would become a faceless country on the other side of the world."
Lost Canadians protest Bill C-37
The Regina Leader Post
By Thomas Jolicoeur, Canwest News Service March 11, 2009
A bill to amend the Citizenship Act on April 17 was heavily criticized Tuesday from a group known as the Lost Canadians who argue it is discriminatory and holds glaring omissions that will potentially leave stateless many who believe Canada to be their home.
Don Chapman, an advocate for the group, told a news conference on Parliament Hill the problem is not with the legislation as it is written, but with the way bureaucrats intend to interpret it. He believes that bill could easily be modified with "a very small stroke of the pen and a different interpretation by the bureaucracy."
The Lost Canadians are people who unjustly lost or never received Canadian citizenship, usually without their knowledge, due to previous regulations.
They are mainly 30,000 war brides who came back from the Second World War war with Canadian servicemen, their children, along with about 100,000 children of families who immigrated to the U.S.
Though the current bill aims to correct this, claiming 95 per cent of Lost Canadians will have citizenship granted or restored, an issue still exists with second-generation children born outside Canada not being granted citizenship.
The main issue, Chapman says, is that men and women have been treated differently in the past when it comes to citizenship. While that problem seems to have improved, he is concerned that the bill does not do enough to cover old issues that will affect coming generations.
Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis, who appeared with Champman at the news conference, accused Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney of "sticking his head in the sand" and said the bill needs to be scrapped because it contains problems. In response, Alykhan Velshi, communications director for Kenney, pointed out that Karygiannis voted for Bill C-37.
As for Chapman's concerns that the new legislation will create more Lost Canadians, Velshi said it is premature to speculate how the bill will be interpreted, as it has yet to come into effect, but that no changes will be made pertaining to that specific aspect of the bill.
By Thomas Jolicoeur, Canwest News Service March 11, 2009
A bill to amend the Citizenship Act on April 17 was heavily criticized Tuesday from a group known as the Lost Canadians who argue it is discriminatory and holds glaring omissions that will potentially leave stateless many who believe Canada to be their home.
Don Chapman, an advocate for the group, told a news conference on Parliament Hill the problem is not with the legislation as it is written, but with the way bureaucrats intend to interpret it. He believes that bill could easily be modified with "a very small stroke of the pen and a different interpretation by the bureaucracy."
The Lost Canadians are people who unjustly lost or never received Canadian citizenship, usually without their knowledge, due to previous regulations.
They are mainly 30,000 war brides who came back from the Second World War war with Canadian servicemen, their children, along with about 100,000 children of families who immigrated to the U.S.
Though the current bill aims to correct this, claiming 95 per cent of Lost Canadians will have citizenship granted or restored, an issue still exists with second-generation children born outside Canada not being granted citizenship.
The main issue, Chapman says, is that men and women have been treated differently in the past when it comes to citizenship. While that problem seems to have improved, he is concerned that the bill does not do enough to cover old issues that will affect coming generations.
Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis, who appeared with Champman at the news conference, accused Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney of "sticking his head in the sand" and said the bill needs to be scrapped because it contains problems. In response, Alykhan Velshi, communications director for Kenney, pointed out that Karygiannis voted for Bill C-37.
As for Chapman's concerns that the new legislation will create more Lost Canadians, Velshi said it is premature to speculate how the bill will be interpreted, as it has yet to come into effect, but that no changes will be made pertaining to that specific aspect of the bill.
A new generation of Lost Canadians
Casey Neal is two years old and Canada doesn't want her. Click here to read Vancouver Sun article |
By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun Columnist
March 10, 2009
All last year, Second World War veteran Guy Valliere waited anxiously to have his Canadian citizenship restored. He died last month, disenfranchised.
Like thousands of other foreign-born children, he had his citizenship stripped from him because his mother — not his father — was Canadian.
Had his father been Canadian, citizenship would never have been in doubt because in every successive Citizenship Act — as in the Indian Act — there has been a patriarchal preference.
What’s particularly galling is that it’s been 27 years since the Charter and its equality rights guarantee was passed and 12 years since the Supreme Court of Canada, in Benner v. Canada, declared the Citizenship Act unconstitutional because it discriminates against women.
Yet the act remains in force. A new bill has been passed and may be enacted next month. It will ensure that going forward, foreign-born children of Canadian mothers will be eligible for citizenship. But the new act will not automatically restore it to those mothers’ children whose citizenship was stripped. Plus it will create a new generation of so-called Lost Canadians — the grandchildren of women whose citizenship was stolen.
Last year, Lost Canadians’ advocate, Vancouver-born Don Chapman convinced the government that Valliere and a handful of others couldn’t wait. The government agreed and said exceptional cases would be dealt with through citizenship grants.
Yet not a single applicant has received such a grant. Not Valliere. Not Lucy Proulx. Not Arch Ford.
It makes Chapman furious because once the new law is passed, the special deal is off the table and those mothers’ children will have to apply for and then fulfil a three-year residency requirement.
Proulx hasn’t got that kind of time. The California resident has advanced metastatic breast cancer and suffers from “excruciating pain.”
She has no intention of returning to Canada. What she does want is proof that she is who she has always believed she is — a French-Canadian, like all of her ancestors.
Proulx can trace her Canadian roots back 11 generations on one side and 10 generations to the Plains of Abraham on the other.
“I may be very tired and weak, but I still believe with all my heart and soul that I was born and will die a French-Canadian,” she wrote in an e-mail. “But I KNOW who I am! And I'm proud of it!”
Ford was born in the U.S. to a Canadian-born mother and an American father. While he was still a baby, Ford’s parents divorced and he and his mother moved back. Ford grew up in Canada and had little contact with his father.
The 1947 Citizenship Act was in force at the time his mother moved back. It clearly said that the child’s citizenship is the same as that of the “responsible parent.” But somehow, the Canadian government won’t recognize Ford as a Canadian.
This week, Chapman was in Ottawa, begging the government to show some compassion and grant a handful of Lost Canadians their citizenship. But he also was there warning that the new act is imperfect and simply moves the gender discrimination back a generation.
Chapman uses the example of his two grand-nieces. One had a Canadian-born grandmother and the other a Canadian-born grandfather. Kasey Neal, whose grandmother is Canadian, is not eligible for citizenship. Her cousin, Lillian Miller, is.
It mirrors the supposedly remedied Indian Act, which was declared unconstitutional in 2007 by a B.C. Supreme Court judge, who said it discriminated along matrilineal and patrilineal lines, treating grandchildren differently.
Ottawa appealed and the case was heard by the B.C. Court of Appeal in October. No decision has been rendered.
It’s bad enough that old laws were discriminatory. But for a government to repeat the error in new legislation and then spend more time and money defending it is not only a waste of time and money, it’s insulting.
dbramham@vancouversun.com
Click here to read about more Lost Canadians
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
March 10, 2009
All last year, Second World War veteran Guy Valliere waited anxiously to have his Canadian citizenship restored. He died last month, disenfranchised.
Like thousands of other foreign-born children, he had his citizenship stripped from him because his mother — not his father — was Canadian.
Had his father been Canadian, citizenship would never have been in doubt because in every successive Citizenship Act — as in the Indian Act — there has been a patriarchal preference.
What’s particularly galling is that it’s been 27 years since the Charter and its equality rights guarantee was passed and 12 years since the Supreme Court of Canada, in Benner v. Canada, declared the Citizenship Act unconstitutional because it discriminates against women.
Yet the act remains in force. A new bill has been passed and may be enacted next month. It will ensure that going forward, foreign-born children of Canadian mothers will be eligible for citizenship. But the new act will not automatically restore it to those mothers’ children whose citizenship was stripped. Plus it will create a new generation of so-called Lost Canadians — the grandchildren of women whose citizenship was stolen.
Last year, Lost Canadians’ advocate, Vancouver-born Don Chapman convinced the government that Valliere and a handful of others couldn’t wait. The government agreed and said exceptional cases would be dealt with through citizenship grants.
Yet not a single applicant has received such a grant. Not Valliere. Not Lucy Proulx. Not Arch Ford.
It makes Chapman furious because once the new law is passed, the special deal is off the table and those mothers’ children will have to apply for and then fulfil a three-year residency requirement.
Proulx hasn’t got that kind of time. The California resident has advanced metastatic breast cancer and suffers from “excruciating pain.”
She has no intention of returning to Canada. What she does want is proof that she is who she has always believed she is — a French-Canadian, like all of her ancestors.
Proulx can trace her Canadian roots back 11 generations on one side and 10 generations to the Plains of Abraham on the other.
“I may be very tired and weak, but I still believe with all my heart and soul that I was born and will die a French-Canadian,” she wrote in an e-mail. “But I KNOW who I am! And I'm proud of it!”
Ford was born in the U.S. to a Canadian-born mother and an American father. While he was still a baby, Ford’s parents divorced and he and his mother moved back. Ford grew up in Canada and had little contact with his father.
The 1947 Citizenship Act was in force at the time his mother moved back. It clearly said that the child’s citizenship is the same as that of the “responsible parent.” But somehow, the Canadian government won’t recognize Ford as a Canadian.
This week, Chapman was in Ottawa, begging the government to show some compassion and grant a handful of Lost Canadians their citizenship. But he also was there warning that the new act is imperfect and simply moves the gender discrimination back a generation.
Chapman uses the example of his two grand-nieces. One had a Canadian-born grandmother and the other a Canadian-born grandfather. Kasey Neal, whose grandmother is Canadian, is not eligible for citizenship. Her cousin, Lillian Miller, is.
It mirrors the supposedly remedied Indian Act, which was declared unconstitutional in 2007 by a B.C. Supreme Court judge, who said it discriminated along matrilineal and patrilineal lines, treating grandchildren differently.
Ottawa appealed and the case was heard by the B.C. Court of Appeal in October. No decision has been rendered.
It’s bad enough that old laws were discriminatory. But for a government to repeat the error in new legislation and then spend more time and money defending it is not only a waste of time and money, it’s insulting.
dbramham@vancouversun.com
Click here to read about more Lost Canadians
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Lost Canadians in the Senate
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
2nd Session, 40th Parliament,Volume 146, Issue 17
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
QUESTION PERIOD
Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism
Disenfranchised Canadian Citizens
Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, it is International Women's Week, in 2009, and this Conservative government is still actively discriminating against women.(1435)
Senator Manning: No.
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Senator Milne: Carry on; please do. I will tell you how. Less than a month ago, a Canadian World War II veteran — if you want to hear about Canadians who served our country — died while still disenfranchised in his own country. The only reason for his disenfranchisement is that he was born to a Canadian mother and an American father. Due to the arcane provisions of the Citizenship Act, it is much easier to obtain and regain Canadian citizenship if your relationship to Canada is through a man instead of a woman.Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate explain why this Conservative government, in 2009, still holds the view that a father's family is more important than a mother's in determining citizenship?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Minister of State (Seniors)): The honourable senator is obviously referring to a situation that has been in place for quite some considerable time, specifically with regard to the citizenship issue.I would argue vehemently that we do not discriminate against women. As Senator Milne can well understand, I will need to seek advice from the citizenship department as to what the problem is, what rules and regulations are in place and what, if anything, has ever been done or not done over the past number of years — decades, I suppose, according to the honourable senator's question — by various levels of government with regard to this particular case.
Senator Comeau: Since 1945.
Senator Milne: Honourable senators, Guy Vallière was born in Canada. He was a tenth-generation Quebecer. He lived in Canada and he served the people of Canada in World War II. A month ago he died in Canada, yet he was denied citizenship because his mother was a Canadian but his father was not. I first told his story to this chamber on March 2, 2008, when Bill C-37 was being debated in this place.When will this government stop apologizing for the Minister of Immigration and start demanding that he do the right thing and grant these "lost Canadians" their citizenship, regardless of the fact that his or her mother was a Canadian and not his or her father?
Senator LeBreton: With regard to the Minister of Immigration, he has recently taken up this post. I am well aware of the various complexities around the whole issue of "lost" Canadian citizens. This is a specific case.I do know that our government has taken positive steps in this regard. With respect to this specific case, Senator Milne will understand that I will need to refer that matter to the department and await their answer.
* * * * *
What makes this so bizarre, is that the Speaker of the Senate, Senator Noel Kinsella, was the sponsor of Lost Canadian Bills S-17 and S-2, and his forte is in human rights.
Senator Tkachuk was also there at the beginning, helping Senator Kinsella with S-2.
Just last December I met personally with both Senators and explained the issues. Obviously they just didn't get it.
Also the Conservative leader in the Senate, Marjorie LeBreton. She not only sat in on the Senate Subcommittee hearings on Lost Canadians several years ago, but she helped sponsor Bills S-17 and S-2. I talked with her a few months back, and again she obviously didn't get it.
With my trip to Ottawa this week, I believe they all got a rude awakening! Jason Kenney's next actions will show Canadians that his party is either willing to accept discrimination, or it's not to be tolerated it and thus he will have no choice but to correct it.
We must let him know that the world is watching. Thus, contact your media where ever you happen to live. Canada should allowed to get away with this. I have several other cards up my sleeve, and if needed I'll play them.
We're at the end, let's fight for every last Lost Canadian as if that person was you. "Do unto others." My psyche, if you will, comes as an airline pilot. We never want anyone injured or killed on our airplane. If just one person hadn't survived the Hudson river ditching, Captain Sully would have considered his actions as a failure. Everyone who is on my list deserves fighting for.
Please, turn up the heat. Regarding April 17th in Ottawa, I have very mixed emotions. Michelle Valliere insists that I be there. I know that Parliament is not in session that week, so the number of MP's there would be minimal.
The Conservatives have turned mean, so they just might not want a celebration.
However, that said, they don't want the negative publicity. I do know many top insiders of the party are contacting Jason Kenney and telling him to put a stop to this. If they continue to be jerks about it, then maybe we should do Ottawa as a celebration / protest. I know that I can get more media coverage and we can speak in unison for those being left behind. Besides, most of us are at an age where protesting was a part of our generation. We might be older, but what the hell! Hopefully it won't come to that, but send me your thoughts. I'm game.
Lastly, my family is to go before a citizenship judge on March 16th in Vancouver. My children and my wife have to prove their "connection" to the country! If, and only if they convince the judge that there is a connection, then they will be given the right to get their citizenship in Vancouver on Friday March 20th. I didn't ask for this, but the paperwork included me.
For many years I have had the right to get my citizenship, whether as a landed immigrant or a Lost Canadian beneficiary of Bill S-2. I've refused, believing that as the head of the Lost Canadians I should be last in line to be reinstated. I have mixed emotions- certainly if the judge tells my wife to take a hike then so will I.
I'm quite happy waiting for April 17th, but many LC's have suggested that I go through with it. If it would help change the outcome of the people being denied then I'd be happy waiting. Maybe using the moment as a public protest would do some good? I'm all ears as to your thoughts.
Here are a few email addresses: Prime Minister Stephen Harper,pm@pm.gc.ca Jason Kenney,KenneJ@parl.gc.ca website: http://www.jasonkenney.com/ Governor General Michaëlle Jean,info@gg.ca
2nd Session, 40th Parliament,Volume 146, Issue 17
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
QUESTION PERIOD
Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism
Disenfranchised Canadian Citizens
Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, it is International Women's Week, in 2009, and this Conservative government is still actively discriminating against women.(1435)
Senator Manning: No.
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Senator Milne: Carry on; please do. I will tell you how. Less than a month ago, a Canadian World War II veteran — if you want to hear about Canadians who served our country — died while still disenfranchised in his own country. The only reason for his disenfranchisement is that he was born to a Canadian mother and an American father. Due to the arcane provisions of the Citizenship Act, it is much easier to obtain and regain Canadian citizenship if your relationship to Canada is through a man instead of a woman.Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate explain why this Conservative government, in 2009, still holds the view that a father's family is more important than a mother's in determining citizenship?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Minister of State (Seniors)): The honourable senator is obviously referring to a situation that has been in place for quite some considerable time, specifically with regard to the citizenship issue.I would argue vehemently that we do not discriminate against women. As Senator Milne can well understand, I will need to seek advice from the citizenship department as to what the problem is, what rules and regulations are in place and what, if anything, has ever been done or not done over the past number of years — decades, I suppose, according to the honourable senator's question — by various levels of government with regard to this particular case.
Senator Comeau: Since 1945.
Senator Milne: Honourable senators, Guy Vallière was born in Canada. He was a tenth-generation Quebecer. He lived in Canada and he served the people of Canada in World War II. A month ago he died in Canada, yet he was denied citizenship because his mother was a Canadian but his father was not. I first told his story to this chamber on March 2, 2008, when Bill C-37 was being debated in this place.When will this government stop apologizing for the Minister of Immigration and start demanding that he do the right thing and grant these "lost Canadians" their citizenship, regardless of the fact that his or her mother was a Canadian and not his or her father?
Senator LeBreton: With regard to the Minister of Immigration, he has recently taken up this post. I am well aware of the various complexities around the whole issue of "lost" Canadian citizens. This is a specific case.I do know that our government has taken positive steps in this regard. With respect to this specific case, Senator Milne will understand that I will need to refer that matter to the department and await their answer.
* * * * *
What makes this so bizarre, is that the Speaker of the Senate, Senator Noel Kinsella, was the sponsor of Lost Canadian Bills S-17 and S-2, and his forte is in human rights.
Senator Tkachuk was also there at the beginning, helping Senator Kinsella with S-2.
Just last December I met personally with both Senators and explained the issues. Obviously they just didn't get it.
Also the Conservative leader in the Senate, Marjorie LeBreton. She not only sat in on the Senate Subcommittee hearings on Lost Canadians several years ago, but she helped sponsor Bills S-17 and S-2. I talked with her a few months back, and again she obviously didn't get it.
With my trip to Ottawa this week, I believe they all got a rude awakening! Jason Kenney's next actions will show Canadians that his party is either willing to accept discrimination, or it's not to be tolerated it and thus he will have no choice but to correct it.
We must let him know that the world is watching. Thus, contact your media where ever you happen to live. Canada should allowed to get away with this. I have several other cards up my sleeve, and if needed I'll play them.
We're at the end, let's fight for every last Lost Canadian as if that person was you. "Do unto others." My psyche, if you will, comes as an airline pilot. We never want anyone injured or killed on our airplane. If just one person hadn't survived the Hudson river ditching, Captain Sully would have considered his actions as a failure. Everyone who is on my list deserves fighting for.
Please, turn up the heat. Regarding April 17th in Ottawa, I have very mixed emotions. Michelle Valliere insists that I be there. I know that Parliament is not in session that week, so the number of MP's there would be minimal.
The Conservatives have turned mean, so they just might not want a celebration.
However, that said, they don't want the negative publicity. I do know many top insiders of the party are contacting Jason Kenney and telling him to put a stop to this. If they continue to be jerks about it, then maybe we should do Ottawa as a celebration / protest. I know that I can get more media coverage and we can speak in unison for those being left behind. Besides, most of us are at an age where protesting was a part of our generation. We might be older, but what the hell! Hopefully it won't come to that, but send me your thoughts. I'm game.
Lastly, my family is to go before a citizenship judge on March 16th in Vancouver. My children and my wife have to prove their "connection" to the country! If, and only if they convince the judge that there is a connection, then they will be given the right to get their citizenship in Vancouver on Friday March 20th. I didn't ask for this, but the paperwork included me.
For many years I have had the right to get my citizenship, whether as a landed immigrant or a Lost Canadian beneficiary of Bill S-2. I've refused, believing that as the head of the Lost Canadians I should be last in line to be reinstated. I have mixed emotions- certainly if the judge tells my wife to take a hike then so will I.
I'm quite happy waiting for April 17th, but many LC's have suggested that I go through with it. If it would help change the outcome of the people being denied then I'd be happy waiting. Maybe using the moment as a public protest would do some good? I'm all ears as to your thoughts.
Here are a few email addresses: Prime Minister Stephen Harper,pm@pm.gc.ca Jason Kenney,KenneJ@parl.gc.ca website: http://www.jasonkenney.com/ Governor General Michaëlle Jean,info@gg.ca
Who is Don Chapman?
On March 10 Barb Porteous, one of our Lost Canadians who received a S 5.4 two years ago, sent out a very strong letter to her MP Ron Cannan of Kelowna figuring it might help a little with the Lost Canadian cause. Look at the response she received.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Cannan, Ron - Personal
To: 'bporteous'
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 11:27 PM
Subject: RE: Lost Canadian issue
Hi Barb,
Sorry to read that you are upset but I am not certain why as the new legislation is to come into effect in April.
.
Who is Don Chapman?
Appreciate all the support you have provided Jim in the past as well as Rob Zandee.
Can I help in some way?
Regards,
Ron Cannan, MP Kelowna Lake Country (250) 470-5075 (Constituency Office in Capri Mall) (613) 992-7006 (Parliament Hill Office) "Your Kelowna Lake Country Voice in Ottawa" www.cannan.ca
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Cannan, Ron - Personal
To: 'bporteous'
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 11:27 PM
Subject: RE: Lost Canadian issue
Hi Barb,
Sorry to read that you are upset but I am not certain why as the new legislation is to come into effect in April.
.
Who is Don Chapman?
Appreciate all the support you have provided Jim in the past as well as Rob Zandee.
Can I help in some way?
Regards,
Ron Cannan, MP Kelowna Lake Country (250) 470-5075 (Constituency Office in Capri Mall) (613) 992-7006 (Parliament Hill Office) "Your Kelowna Lake Country Voice in Ottawa" www.cannan.ca
Happy International Women's Day: Department of Citizenship and Immigration Discriminates against Women
Two year old Casey Neal and her cousin, 15 month old Darcey Miller are cute little toddlers who are just learning how to talk. They have no idea that their parents’ applications for Canadian citizenship have opened up a can of worms about gender discrimination at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) that is going to embarrass the Harper government during International Women’s Day week.
Both Casey and Darcey were born in the United States. Like hundreds of thousands of foreign-born persons who became citizens since 1977, both children (and their parents too) should be able to claim citizenship through their Canadian-born grandmother and grandfather.
Called the “second-generation born abroad” rule, it’s helped people from all over the world, including Asia, Africa and the Middle East, obtain citizenship since 1977 because of a solid Canadian connection.
Last year, when the House of Commons and Senate unanimously passed Bill C-37 (an Act to Amend the Citizenship Act also known as the Lost Canadian Bill), CIC decided to close the “second generation born abroad” rule. As of April 17, 2009, such applications will no longer be accepted. The rule change grew out of the war against Lebanon in 2006 which focused attention on the citizenship of tens of thousands of Lebanese-born persons who were stranded in the country during the Israeli assault. As Canadian citizens, they had a right to return to Canada at taxpayer’s expense, yet many had never spent very little time in this country. That and other concerns about the value of Canadian citizenship led the government to overturn the “second generation born abroad” rule which comes into effect on April 17.
That’s why there is a growing sense of urgency to Casey and Darcey’s applications for Canadian citizenship. If they aren’t accepted before April 17 – which happens to be the 27th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – they will have lost their only chance to become citizens.
1946 Citizenship Act Not Charter Compliant
That the citizenship of two cute little babies expires on Charter Day is just one of the many ironies that make this story so interesting.
All things being equal, both Casey and Darcey should qualify for citizenship. But according to the CIC, they are not equal - and neither are their parents. That’s because CIC t is applying the 1947 Citizenship Act to their applications. Why? Because their Canadian connection was born before the 1977 Citizenship Act, an Act which threw out the more overtly discriminatory tenets of its predecessor, the 1947 Act.
Judged by today’s standards, the 1947 Citizenship Act is a nasty piece of legislation that classifies women and children as chattel of men and stereotypes them as being on par with “lunatics and idiots”. Marital status, race, sex, and age discrimination run rife throughout the document, reflecting the political and social climate of the day. Since it preceded the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by nearly 40 years, the 1947 Act is not Charter compliant and nobody - no feminist, no lawyer, no politician or anyone who remotely considers themselves progressive - can defend it from today’s standards.
But that doesn’t stop CIC from trying: According to the Department, Casey and her father Ken Neal are not entitled to citizenship because under the 1947 Act their Canadian connection is through Ken’s mother Ruth – a woman. Meantime cousin Darcey, and his mother Lilyan, have been granted Canadian citizenship because their connection is through Lilyan’s father Norman - a man.
It’s unbelievable but true: in 2009, CIC discriminates against applicants by applying 65 year old discriminatory legislation that is not Charter compliant.
The Lost Canadians
Little Casey’s grandmother is Ruth (Chapman) Pina and Darcey’s grandfather is Norm Chapman. They are from the well-known philanthropic Chapman family from Vancouver, British Columbia.
Ruth and Norm’s baby brother is 61 year old Don Chapman, the leader of the Lost Canadians. Ruth, Norman and Don were all born in British Columbia and in 1954 they were brought by their parents to the United States. Their father, a Canadian World War Two veteran, developed arthritis in his hands and it was suggested that he move to a drier climate where he could continue to practice as an orthodontist.
At the time, Dr. and Mrs. Chapman went to great lengths to ensure that their children would not lose their Canadian citizenship - but they were misinformed, a familiar complaint which crops up in many Lost Canadian stories. Like his brothers and sisters, Don Chapman grew up believing that he could return to Canada. When he was 18, he tried to come back and was told that he had lost his citizenship. From that refusal in 1966 the movement known as “The Lost Canadians” was born.
As Don found out, according to the 1947 Citizenship Act, wives and children were the property of the “responsible parent” in this case, the man, so when their father took out US citizenship, the children had no choice but to do the same. In so doing, they unwittingly lost their Canadian citizenship, Canada not recognizing dual citizenship until the 1977 Act.
The Lost Canadians are, for the most part, Canadian born men and women who, through a quirk of the 1947 Act, were stripped of their citizenship. Many lived in Canada their entire lives, went to school and university, worked, and paid taxes. Some served in the Canadian Armed Forces. Many have had passports! They only found out about the loss provisions of the 1947 Act until they applied for new passports or for Canada Pension Plan in the years following 9/11. One lady, the daughter of a British War Bride and a Canadian veteran, found out she was not a citizen when she applied for a new driver’s license in 2006.
Estimated to number more than 250,000, the Lost Canadians include people like the Chapmans, whose parents took out citizenship in the United States and elsewhere; War Brides and their children who were born overseas during the Second World War; military brats born on Canadian Forces Bases in Europe; Border Babies – children born across the border in the United States when there was no local hospital in Canada; and Mennonites who married in Paraguay and Mexico.
Under Don Chapman’s leadership, the Lost Canadians have made some huge strides in the past year alone. On April 17, 2009, Bill C-37 will come into force and most cases of lost citizenship will be resolved.
But as Don’s great-nieces, Casey and Darcey, clearly show, the Lost Canadians still have a long way to go before they achieve true equality. So long as CIC continues to judge one’s right to citizenship through the lens of 1947 Act, an Act that would not pass the test of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there will continue to be more Casey’s and Darceys, especially after April 17.
Don knows of at least seven other grown men and women, including two Canadian World War Two veterans and the daughter of a British War Bride, whose citizenship must be granted before April 17 or they will forever lose their chance. The Mennonites alone have more than 60 cases.
As Don says, “It would be so simple for Minister Jason Kenney to issue discretionary grants of citizenship in these relatively few cases, but he refuses to do so, clinging to the defense of the discriminatory 1947 Act.”
Meantime, as Don notes, “The Minister hands out discretionary grants to all kinds of people, including, a two year old Nigerian girl and her mother, whose pitiful case drew the sympathy of the media in Calgary in February.”
Chapman says that when the applicant is a cute and cuddly two year old, the Minister doesn’t want to take the political heat for a negative decision. “But when the applicant is an aging World War Two veteran or a war bride daughter, the Minister shows how little he really cares about people’s lives and how quickly they can be swept under the rug.”
With all the special favours and exceptions to the rule, it’s understandable why the Lost Canadians are cynical of a system that only works when the politicians start to feel the pressure.
“I’ve been working on this issue nearly full time for the past ten years,” says Chapman, “And I’ve seen plenty of less deserving people get their citizenship ahead of Lost Canadians who were born in Canada and who have been waiting in the line up for years. It’s unjust.”
Sadly, time is not on their side. Eighty-four year old World War Two veteran, Guy Vallieres, who was born in Quebec, passed away two weeks ago while waiting for his Section 5.4 grant of citizenship to be processed by the Department.
Sixty-two year old Lucie Proulx is on her deathbed in the United States and is not expected to live long. All she wanted to be able to say before she died was that she was a Canadian citizen. She received her rejection letter last week and is about ready to give up the final battle.
Lucie and Guy join tens of thousands of Lost Canadians who have been rejected by the Department over the past 62 years for no other reason than the discriminatory and archaic provisions of the 1947 Act through which their application for citizenship is judged.
If Don Chapman has anything to say about it, Casey and Darcey will get their special grants of citizenship before April 17, but he knows it’s not going to be easy. Despite years of lobbying human rights groups and government agencies tasked with women’s and children’s rights, he doesn’t see that they really care a whole lot about citizenship. He has long lists of so-called human rights activists whom he has contacted over the years and none of them were any help save for the Cape Breton Children’s Rights Center, headed by _______________.
But he’s not going to give up, especially as another International Women’s Day comes and goes and the Canadian government pays lip service to women’s rights by hosting events across the country honouring Section 15 – the equality provision - of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Acknowledging that the issue of gender discrimination at CIC is a “can of worms” that Mr. Kenney and his bureaucrats could easily avoid, Chapman says he’s feels he has no choice but to open it wide so that “every Canadian, and every feminist, lawyer, scholar and politician who claims to have any respect for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does something about the way CIC treats women.”
- 30 -
For further information, please contact:
Don Chapmandcinbc@yahoo.ca
Both Casey and Darcey were born in the United States. Like hundreds of thousands of foreign-born persons who became citizens since 1977, both children (and their parents too) should be able to claim citizenship through their Canadian-born grandmother and grandfather.
Called the “second-generation born abroad” rule, it’s helped people from all over the world, including Asia, Africa and the Middle East, obtain citizenship since 1977 because of a solid Canadian connection.
Last year, when the House of Commons and Senate unanimously passed Bill C-37 (an Act to Amend the Citizenship Act also known as the Lost Canadian Bill), CIC decided to close the “second generation born abroad” rule. As of April 17, 2009, such applications will no longer be accepted. The rule change grew out of the war against Lebanon in 2006 which focused attention on the citizenship of tens of thousands of Lebanese-born persons who were stranded in the country during the Israeli assault. As Canadian citizens, they had a right to return to Canada at taxpayer’s expense, yet many had never spent very little time in this country. That and other concerns about the value of Canadian citizenship led the government to overturn the “second generation born abroad” rule which comes into effect on April 17.
That’s why there is a growing sense of urgency to Casey and Darcey’s applications for Canadian citizenship. If they aren’t accepted before April 17 – which happens to be the 27th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – they will have lost their only chance to become citizens.
1946 Citizenship Act Not Charter Compliant
That the citizenship of two cute little babies expires on Charter Day is just one of the many ironies that make this story so interesting.
All things being equal, both Casey and Darcey should qualify for citizenship. But according to the CIC, they are not equal - and neither are their parents. That’s because CIC t is applying the 1947 Citizenship Act to their applications. Why? Because their Canadian connection was born before the 1977 Citizenship Act, an Act which threw out the more overtly discriminatory tenets of its predecessor, the 1947 Act.
Judged by today’s standards, the 1947 Citizenship Act is a nasty piece of legislation that classifies women and children as chattel of men and stereotypes them as being on par with “lunatics and idiots”. Marital status, race, sex, and age discrimination run rife throughout the document, reflecting the political and social climate of the day. Since it preceded the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by nearly 40 years, the 1947 Act is not Charter compliant and nobody - no feminist, no lawyer, no politician or anyone who remotely considers themselves progressive - can defend it from today’s standards.
But that doesn’t stop CIC from trying: According to the Department, Casey and her father Ken Neal are not entitled to citizenship because under the 1947 Act their Canadian connection is through Ken’s mother Ruth – a woman. Meantime cousin Darcey, and his mother Lilyan, have been granted Canadian citizenship because their connection is through Lilyan’s father Norman - a man.
It’s unbelievable but true: in 2009, CIC discriminates against applicants by applying 65 year old discriminatory legislation that is not Charter compliant.
The Lost Canadians
Little Casey’s grandmother is Ruth (Chapman) Pina and Darcey’s grandfather is Norm Chapman. They are from the well-known philanthropic Chapman family from Vancouver, British Columbia.
Ruth and Norm’s baby brother is 61 year old Don Chapman, the leader of the Lost Canadians. Ruth, Norman and Don were all born in British Columbia and in 1954 they were brought by their parents to the United States. Their father, a Canadian World War Two veteran, developed arthritis in his hands and it was suggested that he move to a drier climate where he could continue to practice as an orthodontist.
At the time, Dr. and Mrs. Chapman went to great lengths to ensure that their children would not lose their Canadian citizenship - but they were misinformed, a familiar complaint which crops up in many Lost Canadian stories. Like his brothers and sisters, Don Chapman grew up believing that he could return to Canada. When he was 18, he tried to come back and was told that he had lost his citizenship. From that refusal in 1966 the movement known as “The Lost Canadians” was born.
As Don found out, according to the 1947 Citizenship Act, wives and children were the property of the “responsible parent” in this case, the man, so when their father took out US citizenship, the children had no choice but to do the same. In so doing, they unwittingly lost their Canadian citizenship, Canada not recognizing dual citizenship until the 1977 Act.
The Lost Canadians are, for the most part, Canadian born men and women who, through a quirk of the 1947 Act, were stripped of their citizenship. Many lived in Canada their entire lives, went to school and university, worked, and paid taxes. Some served in the Canadian Armed Forces. Many have had passports! They only found out about the loss provisions of the 1947 Act until they applied for new passports or for Canada Pension Plan in the years following 9/11. One lady, the daughter of a British War Bride and a Canadian veteran, found out she was not a citizen when she applied for a new driver’s license in 2006.
Estimated to number more than 250,000, the Lost Canadians include people like the Chapmans, whose parents took out citizenship in the United States and elsewhere; War Brides and their children who were born overseas during the Second World War; military brats born on Canadian Forces Bases in Europe; Border Babies – children born across the border in the United States when there was no local hospital in Canada; and Mennonites who married in Paraguay and Mexico.
Under Don Chapman’s leadership, the Lost Canadians have made some huge strides in the past year alone. On April 17, 2009, Bill C-37 will come into force and most cases of lost citizenship will be resolved.
But as Don’s great-nieces, Casey and Darcey, clearly show, the Lost Canadians still have a long way to go before they achieve true equality. So long as CIC continues to judge one’s right to citizenship through the lens of 1947 Act, an Act that would not pass the test of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there will continue to be more Casey’s and Darceys, especially after April 17.
Don knows of at least seven other grown men and women, including two Canadian World War Two veterans and the daughter of a British War Bride, whose citizenship must be granted before April 17 or they will forever lose their chance. The Mennonites alone have more than 60 cases.
As Don says, “It would be so simple for Minister Jason Kenney to issue discretionary grants of citizenship in these relatively few cases, but he refuses to do so, clinging to the defense of the discriminatory 1947 Act.”
Meantime, as Don notes, “The Minister hands out discretionary grants to all kinds of people, including, a two year old Nigerian girl and her mother, whose pitiful case drew the sympathy of the media in Calgary in February.”
Chapman says that when the applicant is a cute and cuddly two year old, the Minister doesn’t want to take the political heat for a negative decision. “But when the applicant is an aging World War Two veteran or a war bride daughter, the Minister shows how little he really cares about people’s lives and how quickly they can be swept under the rug.”
With all the special favours and exceptions to the rule, it’s understandable why the Lost Canadians are cynical of a system that only works when the politicians start to feel the pressure.
“I’ve been working on this issue nearly full time for the past ten years,” says Chapman, “And I’ve seen plenty of less deserving people get their citizenship ahead of Lost Canadians who were born in Canada and who have been waiting in the line up for years. It’s unjust.”
Sadly, time is not on their side. Eighty-four year old World War Two veteran, Guy Vallieres, who was born in Quebec, passed away two weeks ago while waiting for his Section 5.4 grant of citizenship to be processed by the Department.
Sixty-two year old Lucie Proulx is on her deathbed in the United States and is not expected to live long. All she wanted to be able to say before she died was that she was a Canadian citizen. She received her rejection letter last week and is about ready to give up the final battle.
Lucie and Guy join tens of thousands of Lost Canadians who have been rejected by the Department over the past 62 years for no other reason than the discriminatory and archaic provisions of the 1947 Act through which their application for citizenship is judged.
If Don Chapman has anything to say about it, Casey and Darcey will get their special grants of citizenship before April 17, but he knows it’s not going to be easy. Despite years of lobbying human rights groups and government agencies tasked with women’s and children’s rights, he doesn’t see that they really care a whole lot about citizenship. He has long lists of so-called human rights activists whom he has contacted over the years and none of them were any help save for the Cape Breton Children’s Rights Center, headed by _______________.
But he’s not going to give up, especially as another International Women’s Day comes and goes and the Canadian government pays lip service to women’s rights by hosting events across the country honouring Section 15 – the equality provision - of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Acknowledging that the issue of gender discrimination at CIC is a “can of worms” that Mr. Kenney and his bureaucrats could easily avoid, Chapman says he’s feels he has no choice but to open it wide so that “every Canadian, and every feminist, lawyer, scholar and politician who claims to have any respect for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does something about the way CIC treats women.”
- 30 -
For further information, please contact:
Don Chapmandcinbc@yahoo.ca
Bangladeshi Government Removes Gender Discrimination from Citizenship Act - More Progressive than Canadian Government
BdSTDhaka, March 3 (bdnews24.com) – Parliament passed Tuesday an amended law that will automatically give the foreign children having Bangladeshi mothers and foreign fathers Bangladeshi citizenships.
Home minister Shahara Khatun urged the House to pass "The Citizens (Amendment) Act, 2009" she had tabled on Feb. 19 and it was passed by voice vote.
"The bill would remove gender discrimination which was there in The Citizenship Act, 1951," Khatun told parliament before its passage.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Ordinance, 2008 made by the military-installed caretaker government headed by Fakhruddin Ahmed stands cancelled with the passage of the new law.
Earlier, children of Bangladeshi fathers and foreign mothers used to get citizenship, but not those of Bangladeshi women and foreign fathers.
The bill is one of the 54 ordinances, made by the caretaker government, which the parliament's special committee recommended to ratify.
The government took the move to amend the original act as growing numbers of Bangladeshi women are marrying foreigners.
Shahara also tabled Sylhet Metropolitan City Police and Barisal Metropolitan City Police bills for the creation of two separate police forces for the two newly created metropolises.
Local government minister Syed Ahsraful Islam placed Local Government (city corporation) bill and Local Government (pourasabha) bill in parliament.
All the bills were sent to parliamentary standing committees on the relevant ministries.
Source: BD NEws Bangladesh's First Online Newspaper
bdnews24.com/krc/ma/bd/2228h.
WARNING: Any unauthorised use or reproduction of bdnews24.com content for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited and constitutes copyright infringement liable to legal action.
Home minister Shahara Khatun urged the House to pass "The Citizens (Amendment) Act, 2009" she had tabled on Feb. 19 and it was passed by voice vote.
"The bill would remove gender discrimination which was there in The Citizenship Act, 1951," Khatun told parliament before its passage.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Ordinance, 2008 made by the military-installed caretaker government headed by Fakhruddin Ahmed stands cancelled with the passage of the new law.
Earlier, children of Bangladeshi fathers and foreign mothers used to get citizenship, but not those of Bangladeshi women and foreign fathers.
The bill is one of the 54 ordinances, made by the caretaker government, which the parliament's special committee recommended to ratify.
The government took the move to amend the original act as growing numbers of Bangladeshi women are marrying foreigners.
Shahara also tabled Sylhet Metropolitan City Police and Barisal Metropolitan City Police bills for the creation of two separate police forces for the two newly created metropolises.
Local government minister Syed Ahsraful Islam placed Local Government (city corporation) bill and Local Government (pourasabha) bill in parliament.
All the bills were sent to parliamentary standing committees on the relevant ministries.
Source: BD NEws Bangladesh's First Online Newspaper
bdnews24.com/krc/ma/bd/2228h.
WARNING: Any unauthorised use or reproduction of bdnews24.com content for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited and constitutes copyright infringement liable to legal action.
Image of woman and child from http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/floods-displace-millions/2007/08/03/1185648146971.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)