Vancouver Sun: More Lost Canadians - Indian status and citizenship both out of reach for desperate Ontario mom

Heather Harnois' Canadian Ojibwa ancestry dates back generations but the federal government will not recognize the 25-year-old as a status Indian. Canada also won't recognize the Ontario mom, who grew up in Canada as a teen and is desperate to raise her two children here, as a Canadian citizen as she was the second generation of offspring born abroad in the United States.
Photograph by: Tobi Cohen/Postmedia News , Postmedia News
OTTAWA — Despite a Canadian Ojibwa bloodline spanning so many years ago that her grandmother can’t put a date on it, Heather Harnois is considered neither aboriginal, nor Canadian.

It means that while she grew up in this country since her teens, the now 25-year-old mother of two can’t get a social insurance number, health-care coverage or child tax benefits even though one of her children was born in Canada.

Click here to read original article in Vancouver Sun on line

She says sexist laws have prevented her from obtaining her status Indian card, which would give her all those rights and privileges, and Citizenship and Immigration has suggested her only means of naturalization is to first apply for permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

“I’ve been living like an illegal immigrant for almost 12 years,” said the frustrated Haliburton, Ont., mother during a recent trip to Ottawa to make her case to anybody who would listen. “I’m hoping to fix it. I’m not leaving.”

Considered unique, Harnois’ case highlights just how convoluted Canadian citizenship and aboriginal law can be.

To explain, here’s a breakdown of her conundrum:

Harnois was born in the United States to an aboriginal mother and non-status father, the latter of whom she never really knew, and entered Canada legally as a dependent of a status Indian in her early teens to be closer to relatives. Her mother was also the offspring of an aboriginal mother and white father but they were never married.

While all her ancestors from her grandmother down are full-blooded aboriginals from the Chippewa of the Thames reserve near London, Ont., she argues she was ineligible for Indian status due to a “second generation cut-off” rule that prevented Indian women from passing on status. Bill C-3 passed in 2010 sought to rectify parts of the law but it offered no reprieve for her as her grandmother — an Indian woman who had children with a non-status man in the context of a common-law relationship — was still barred from passing on status.

On the citizenship side, Harnois has learned that she is also among those who were penalized in 2009 when the government amended the Citizenship Act so that second-generation offspring born abroad could not be naturalized. Part of Bill C-37, the decision was made in the aftermath of the Israel-Lebanon war after some so-called dual “citizens of convenience” were criticized for taking advantage of the Canadian government and accepting an airlift out of the region only to return once tensions died down.

Bill C-37 was supposed to help “lost Canadians” like Harnois’ mother who was born outside Canada, out-of-wedlock and whose birth was registered with the band office, not the Canadian government. It helped about 95 per cent of so-called lost Canadians who often discovered they weren’t citizens for a variety of administrative reasons when they applied for a passport. That said, it left out the children of would-be war brides and Canadian servicemen born out-of-wedlock prior to 1947 when Canada had no citizenship laws of its own. It also created a new class of lost Canadians — second-generation, born-abroad residents who previously had the option to apply to retain their citizenship before their 28th birthday. It’s an option that might have been available to Harnois had her mother thought to register her own citizenship and her daughter’s citizenship sooner.

“It’s understandable that Canadians may not want second, third and fourth generation born-abroads with no connection to Canada to be citizens,” Harnois conceded.

She added this is often not the case for the remaining lost Canadians, who “have beyond substantial connections and bear legitimacy in Canada.”

This week, Jackie Scott — a 68-year-old B.C. woman who was denied citizenship despite coming to Canada at the age of two with her British mother and Canadian father — went to court to fight for those lost Canadians born prior to 1947, but it’s unlikely her case will have any bearing on people like Harnois.

Toronto immigration lawyer and author Jacqueline Bart said it appears Harnois is indeed “caught” in a very “difficult” and “unique” situation that may only be resolved through humanitarian and compassionate considerations. That said, she believes it was a “prudent” decision on the part of government to limit citizenship to a single generation born abroad and suggests there’s “a real onus on parents to make sure they regularize their children” as soon as they can, be it through sponsorship or another method.

“Otherwise somebody could basically live here for three years and their children’s, children’s, children’s, children’s, children’s children could continue being citizens even though there’s really no tie to Canada,” she said, adding the law is still relatively new and many are being taken by surprise by it.

“I think in the future people will be more informed and educated and will have a greater understanding of what their rights and obligations are.”

As for a possible resolution under the Indian Act, Victoria, B.C.-based aboriginal lawyer Christopher Devlin argued it’s unlikely. He believes it’s in the government’s interest to deny Indian status to aboriginals who marry and procreate with non-aboriginals. It means in 100 years, he argued, there won’t be many status Indians left which means less funding for aboriginal communities and fewer treaty obligations.

“As long as the government defines what it is to be an Indian by procreation and generation and not by other measures of culture and ethnicity, then you’re going to run into these problems and there’s going to be people who very much identify with their aboriginal past but are going to be cut off from legally being Indians,” he said.

“They will have gotten rid of their Indian problem by defining Indians out of existence … It’s a gradual but relentless way to eliminate your responsibility for aboriginal people.”

tcohen@postmedia.com Twitter.com/tobicohen

Click here to read original article in Vancouver Sun on line 

Ottawa Citizen: Editorial - Lost Canadians

Jackie Scott is the daughter of a Canadian War Bride
and a Canadian Second World War veteran who has
been denied Canadian citizenship because she was
born out of wedlock before 1947. 
Photograph by: DARRYL DYCK , THE CANADIAN PRESS


Jackie Scott should not need to go to court to get the Canadian citizenship that is hers by right, and which she eminently deserves.

Scott, who is 68, is one of the thousands of so-called Lost Canadians who have been denied citizenship because of a quirk in the law that should not be countenanced in today’s Canada.

Click here to read original article in the Ottawa Citizen on line 

Scott’s father, John Ellis, put his life on the line to fight for Canada during the Second World War. At the time, even though Canada was a bona fide country, its citizens were considered British subjects. But born in Canada, John Ellis had no doubt he was a Canadian, going to war for his country. The Canadian government itself thought so in 1943. A document issued by the Department of National Defence on the “historic rights of Canadians as they were going overseas,” stated that the soldiers “were fighting as citizens of Canada, not as merely British subjects.”

So there was no doubt when John Ellis was going to war that he was Canadian. While abroad, he fell in love with a British woman and had a child with her out of wedlock. The family moved to Canada in 1948 and they got married. But the year before, when Canada finally passed its own citizenship laws to make Canadians Canadian, it limited citizenship to war children born out of wedlock after 1947, the year Canadians were formally recognized as citizens. Those like Scott, who were born before 1947, didn’t make the cut. Scott actually didn’t find out she wasn’t Canadian until 2005, when she was denied a citizenship certificate. She fought to get her citizenship, but the government claimed that because her soldier-father was “British” when she was born in 1945, she doesn’t qualify to be Canadian. This was the same soldier that according to the DND in 1943, went to war as a Canadian citizen. Clearly one arm of the government didn’t know what the other arm was doing. And the fact that she was born out of wedlock also counted against her, never mind that this is 21st century Canada, not 19th-century Victorian Britain.

“My father fought for Canada. Why should they deny his daughter what really should be hers?” Scott once told the CBC.

“They consider me to be, in this day and age, a bastard. That’s how they still deem me. And I’ve been denied based on that.”

Scott deserves better, as do other war babies born out of wedlock. It is totally unacceptable that some children of soldiers who fought for Canada in the Second World War and have lived in this country for decades are still denied citizenship based on some archaic and absurd notion of puritanism.

The whole mess stems from changes made to the citizenship laws in 1977 that denied citizenship for thousands of people who came to be known as “Lost Canadians.” These included people denied citizenship for being born abroad and out of wedlock in the case of those with a Canadian father, or being born to a Canadian mother who had no right to pass citizenship to her child. Others included children who lost their citizenship because their parents moved to countries like the U.S. and became citizens.

In fairness, the government revamped the law in 2009, allowing about 750,000 “lost Canadians” to get back their citizenship, but many still fell through the cracks. The war children remain some of the thousands who are basically stateless.

Canadian citizenship is something to be valued and treated with pride, and the government has every right to guard it jealously to ensure that only those who are deserving, get it.

But none is more deserving of Canadian citizenship than Jackie Scott, as well as the battalion of other children of servicemen and women who fought for Canada. These Canadians — and yes, they are Canadian — deserve better from their government.

The new minister of citizenship and immigration should act immediately to give these people what rightfully belongs to them. It is the decent thing to do.

Ottawa Citizen

UPI: 'Lost Canadian' woman sues Canadian government for citizenship

Jackie Scott and her parents at Niagara Falls, Ontario after she
arrived in Canada with her War Bride mother.
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, July 23 (UPI) -- A woman born to a Canadian soldier and a British woman during World War II sued the Canadian government after she was denied Canadian citizenship.

In her lawsuit filed Monday in Federal Court in Vancouver, British Columbia, Jacquie Scott said she learned 10 years ago she wasn't officially Canadian even though she was raised in Canada, CBC News reported.

Click here to read original article on UPI website.

Observers said her fight for Canadian citizenship could set a precedent for those who call themselves "lost Canadians."

Scott says 10 years ago she discovered she wasn't officially a Canadian, even though she was raised in Canada by her Canadian father.

Scott says she never questioned her citizenship growing up in Ontario in the 1950s and '60s and even voted in elections.

"How can you vote if you're not a citizen? I did," said Scott.

The trouble began when, while living in the United States with her husband, Scott requested a citizenship certificate and was turned down by the Canadian Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the CBC said.

She said she was given several reasons why she didn't qualify for Canadian citizenship: She was born in Britain to an unmarried, non-Canadian woman (they married later and lived in Canada) and her father wasn't officially Canadian at the time she was conceived because Canadian citizenship status gained legal recognition in 1947. Before that Canadians were considered British subjects.

Don Chapman, an advocate working with Scott, said he thinks her case challenges the government's resistance to recognize so-called lost Canadians.

"This is a concerted effort to go against their own people. And why? I don't understand. It makes no sense whatsoever," Chapman said.

Raji Mangat, a British Columbia Civil Liberties Association lawyer, told the CBC the government must amend its law to include children born to Canadians abroad before 1947.

"Children born abroad to Canadians should be Canadians, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if your parents were married or what the gender of your Canadian parent is," Mangat said.

A Citizenship and Immigration representative didn't discuss specifics of Scott's case but said she was among a small number of people in a similar situation and that legislation that would recognize their status could be filed soon.

Click here to read original article on UPI website.

Sing Tao Daily: Chinese Canadian Perspective on Lost Canadians

For the Chinese-Canadian perspective on the Lost Canadians read these two articles in the Sing Tao Daily, Hong Kong's second largest Chinese language daily newspaper which has affiliates around the world including Canada.

http://news.singtao.ca/vancouver/2013-07-23/headline1374575255d4609544.html

http://news.singtao.ca/vancouver/2013-07-23/headline1374575227d4609543.html

Regina Leader Post: Judicial review into 'Lost Canadians' on hold Vancouver: Jackie Scott and lawyers seek to expand court action to include others denied citizenship

Thousands of so-called "Lost Canadians" may have their day in court if a woman who's waited years to establish her own Canadian citizenship pursues a class-action lawsuit.

Jackie Scott, 68, went to court after she was refused citizenship despite having come to Canada with her British mother and her Canadian father at age two and spending most of her life here.

Click here to read original article on the Regina Leader Post on line.

A judicial review of that denial was to have started Monday in Vancouver, but as proceedings got under way, Scott chose to put the review on hold so she and her lawyers could expand the court action. Scott had initially asked the court to determine whether she was a citizen or not.

But "it's not just about me," Scott said afterward, saying she couldn't in good conscience become a Canadian without doing everything she can to help other "lost" individuals.

Scott was born in England in 1945 to a Canadian serviceman father and British mother and later came to Canada. The government claims Scott's dad was a British subject at the time because Canada's first citizenship act didn't come into effect until 1947.

"What happened today is quite interesting and it's going to result in a historic decision as to what a Canadian is and when Canadians actually came into being," one of Scott's lawyers, James

Straith, said. "What we hope to do now is come back and get a final order from the court where the court finds not just in Jackie Scott's case, but in every one of these cases of Lost Canadians."

The government argued in a written response to Scott's application for judicial review that "Canadian citizenship is a creation of federal statute. In order to become a Canadian citizen, a person must satisfy the applicable statutory requirements."

Straith said he finds that claim very troubling. If the government is "able to maintain that citizenship is only something that is defined by Parliament, and not simply defined by the law and Constitution of Canada, then they have a lot more flexibility on what they can do with citizenship and where they can allow and deny citizenship," said Straith.

Scott's decision to expand the court action came after Judge Luc Martineau refused to allow a government document to be brought before the court. The document - a 1943 pamphlet issued to Canadian soldiers - deals "with the historic rights of Canadians as they were going overseas," said Straith.

It states that the soldiers "were fighting as citizens of Canada, not as merely British subjects," he said.

But due to the narrow nature of a judicial review, such a document isn't permitted. Scott and her lawyers decided a trial setting could lead to a more meaningful ruling.

CTV: "Lost Canadian" denied citizenship mulls class-action suit

"Lost Canadian" denied citizenship mulls class-action suit | CTV British Columbia News Surrey resident Jackie Scott can pay taxes and vote, but the Federal Government says she is not Canadian.

CBC: 'Lost Canadian' sues government for citizenship Jacquie Scott was born out of wedlock to a British mother and Canadian father during WWII

Jacquie Scott and her parents at Niagara Falls the summer
she and her mother arrived in Canada and her parents were married.
A woman born to a Canadian soldier and a British woman during the Second World War is suing the federal government after being denied Canadian citizenship.

Jacquie Scott says it was only 10 years ago that she discovered she was not officially a Canadian, even though she was raised in Canada by her Canadian father.

Click here to read original article on CBC website

On Monday in Federal Court in Vancouver, Scott launched a legal fight for Canadian citizenship that could set a precedent for those who call themselves "lost Canadians."

Scott says she never questioned her citizenship growing up in Ontario in the 1950s and 60s. She was even able to vote in elections as an adult.

"How can you vote if you're not a citizen? I did," said Scott.

But then in 2005, while living in the U.S. with her husband, she applied for a citizenship certificate, and to her surprise the Department of Citizenship and Immigration turned her down. She was given several official reasons why she did not qualify for Canadian citizenship, including that she was born in Britain to an unmarried mother who was not a Canadian, even though her parents married after the war and raised her in Canada.

They also said Scott's Canadian-born father wasn't officially a Canadian at the time either, because Canadian citizenship status only gained legal recognition in 1947. Before that Canadians were considered British subjects.

Scott says the reasoning discriminates against her on several levels.

"It's an absurdity. They just use this discrimination that hinges on age, gender and family status against me."

Monday, Scott asked the Federal Court in Vancouver to overturn that decision.

Don Chapman, an advocate working with Scott, believes Scott's case challenges the government's reluctance to recognize many other so-called lost Canadians.

"This is a concerted effort to go against their own people. And why? I don't understand. It makes no sense whatsoever," said Chapman.

In 2009 the federal government did pass legislation that extended citizenship to many, but only if they were born in 1947 onward.

Read more about the 2009 legislation

B.C. Civil Liberties Association lawyer Raji Mangat says the federal government needs to amend the law once again to include children born to Canadians abroad before 1947.

"Children born abroad to Canadians should be Canadians, plain and simple. It doesn’t matter if your parents were married or what the gender of your Canadian parent is," said Mangat.

A spokesperson for Citizenship and Immigration wouldn't discuss the specifics of Scott's case, but suggested hers was among a small number of people in the same situation, and that legislation recognizing their status is anticipated at some point in the near future.

According to Mangat, the term "lost Canadians" includes those who are denied citizenship for being born abroad and out of wedlock in the case of those with a Canadian father, or for being born to a Canadian mother who had no right to pass citizenship down to her child.

Click here to read original article on CBC website

Globe and Mail: ‘Lost Canadian’ hopes to overhaul Canadian citizenship laws through class-action lawsuit

A woman who has waited years to establish her Canadian citizenship in court is considering expanding her case into a class-action lawsuit to include thousands of other so-called “lost Canadians.”

Jackie Scott, 68, was refused citizenship even though she came to Canada with her British mother and Canadian father at the age of two and spent most of her life here. A judicial review of that denial was to have started on Monday, but as the proceedings got under way, Ms. Scott put it on hold so she and her lawyers could broaden the court action.

Click here to read original article on the Globe and Mail website.

Ms. Scott had initially asked the court to determine whether she was a citizen.

But “it’s not just about me,” she told reporters afterward, saying she could not in good conscience become a Canadian without doing everything she can to help other “lost” individuals.

Ms. Scott was born in England in 1945 to a Canadian serviceman father and a British mother and later migrated to Canada.

The government claims that Ms. Scott’s father was legally considered a British subject at the time because Canada’s first citizenship act did not come into effect until 1947.

“What happened today is quite interesting and it’s going to result in a historic decision as to what a Canadian is and when Canadians actually came into being,” one of Ms. Scott’s lawyers, James Straith, said outside the court.

“What we hope to do now is come back and get a final order from the court where the court finds not just in Jackie Scott’s case, but in every one of these cases of Lost Canadians,” Mr. Straith said.

The government argued in a written response to Ms. Scott’s application for judicial review that “Canadian citizenship is a creation of federal statute. In order to become a Canadian citizen, a person must satisfy the applicable statutory requirements.”

But Mr. Straith said he finds that claim very troubling.

If the government is “able to maintain that citizenship is only something that is defined by Parliament, and not simply defined by the law and Constitution of Canada, then they have a lot more flexibility on what they can do with citizenship and where they can allow and deny citizenship,” he said.

Ms. Scott’s decision to expand the court action came after Judge Luc Martineau refused to allow a government document to be brought before the court.

The document – a 1943 pamphlet issued to Canadian soldiers – deals “with the historic rights of Canadians as they were going overseas,” Mr. Straith said.

It states that the soldiers “were fighting as citizens of Canada, not as merely British subjects,” he said.

But due to the narrow nature of a judicial review, such a document is not permitted. Ms. Scott and her lawyers decided a trial setting could lead to a more meaningful ruling.

“Then the court can make a finding, binding on everyone, that as a matter of fact Canadian citizens did or did not exist prior to Jan. 1, 1947,” Mr. Straith said. “It’s an opportunity to get this dealt with once and for all.”

Ms. Scott’s judicial review has been adjourned. Over the next few weeks, she and her lawyers will determine whether to pursue a class-action lawsuit, or petition the court for a declaratory statement.

Although the timeline is still uncertain, Ms. Scott should be back in front of a judge in September. If the new action is denied, the judicial review will go forward.

How many people might be affected by a class action or declaratory statement is unclear.

“I would guess that there are probably several thousand people that are affected like Jackie,” said Don Chapman, the founder of the Lost Canadians.

But “the problem is you don’t know,” he said.

When the federal government overhauled its citizenship laws in 2009, approximately 750,000 lost Canadians gained citizenship. However, because the changes applied only to those born in or after 1947, individuals like Ms. Scott were excluded.

And although Ms. Scott said it would have been nice to leave the court on Monday with confirmation that she’s Canadian, she knows she is not the only one affected by a feeling of statelessness.

“We’ll eventually be all dead — we’re a bunch of senior citizens,” she said of the remaining lost Canadians.

“It’s like the government is waiting for [us] to go away through attrition.”

“I guess I’ll just have to be stubborn enough and stick around and make sure it’s resolved,” she said.

THE CANADIAN PRESS

Click here to read original article on the Globe and Mail website. 

National Post: Brian Hutchinson: ‘Lost Canadian’ fighting nonsensical law that prevents war babies from becoming citizens

Jackie Scott outside the Federal Court in Vancouver on Monday, July 22, 2013.
Photo by the Canadian Press, Daryl Dyck.
Jackie Scott has no doubt that she is Canadian. It’s in her blood, and in the way she was raised. Her father was a Canadian soldier who served overseas during the Second World War. He met a British woman. The couple fell in love and had a child.

Click here to read original article on National Post

A few years later, the family moved to Canada, where Ms. Scott’s parents then married. Because she was born abroad and out of wedlock many years ago, when a stigma was attached to the circumstance, Ms. Scott is still refused Canadian citizenship. This despite the fact she spent her childhood in Ontario, and now lives in British Columbia. Her own daughter is a Canadian citizen.

And she’s not alone. Ms. Scott is one of perhaps thousands of so-called Lost Canadians, men and women who for nonsensical reasons continue to be denied citizenship by the federal government and by citizenship courts. Some Lost Canadians may not even realize their predicament; Ms. Scott didn’t know she lacked citizenship until 2005, when she requested an official certificate and was turned down.

She suspects that a promise to remedy her situation — made a year ago by Jason Kenney, then Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism — will not be kept, and she is therefore seeking redress in the courts. On Monday, Ms. Scott appeared with lawyers before a Federal Court judge in Vancouver, and applied for a judicial review of her case.

Although the matter was adjourned to August, Ms. Scott’s legal counsel advised the court that she may choose to litigate the case as well, perhaps bringing others on board with a class-action lawsuit.

 “I keep saying that this is not just about me,” Ms. Scott said after Monday’s adjournment. “This involves many more people.” I keep saying that this is not just about me

Why not wait for the federal government to address the problem directly with corrective action, as Mr. Kenney promised? “He said that over a year ago and nothing has happened,” Ms. Scott noted. “I’m 68 years old. Is the government waiting for this to be resolved through attrition? Maybe the government plans to let all of us die, as a way of fixing the problem.”

 That would be an injustice, and a stain on Canada. Ms. Scott has the strength and the means to fight for her citizenship, denied to her by flawed legislation, past and present. As her lead counsel, Jay Straith, told the Federal Court on Monday, “others in her situation are old and can’t afford to litigate [on their own].”

Don Chapman was in the courtroom, listening intently. A former airline pilot, he spent the past decade raising awareness about the Lost Canadians, most of whom were actually born in this country but denied citizenship for one arcane reason or another. Mr. Chapman is one of thousands whose citizenship was finally affirmed four years ago, when parliament passed Bill C-37, legislation that solved previous legal conundrums.

Unfortunately, C-37 didn’t help war babies such as Ms. Scott, born out of wedlock and abroad prior to 1947, and it didn’t help children born in wedlock to Canadian women and foreign nationals, including Americans.

Click here to read original article on National Post

Green Party's Elizabeth May says "The historic importance of this case cannot be overstated."

Elizabeth May, Green Party leader, MP for Saanich-Gulf Island
The historic importance of this case cannot be overstated. For millions of people around the world, citizenship forms the bedrock of human rights and equality. Unfortunately in Canada, the government interprets citizenship as a legislative privilege that can be applied arbitrarily and denied to a person on discriminatory grounds when it should be a constitutional right. I commend Jackie Scott for fighting the discrimination of our current system and for standing up for equal rights for all Canadians.”

Vancouver Sun: ‘Lost Canadian’ hopes to overhaul Canadian citizenship laws in court

Jackie Scott, left, who was born out of wedlock in England in 1945 to an English mother and a Canadian soldier and is seeking a judicial review of her exclusion from citizenship based on the 1946 Canadian Citizenship Act, listens to her lawyer Jay Straith as he speaks to reporters outside Federal Court in Vancouver, B.C., on Monday, July 22, 2013. Photograph by: DARRYL DYCK , THE CANADIAN PRESS
Thousands of so-called “Lost Canadians” may have their day in court if a woman who’s waited years to establish her own Canadian citizenship decides to pursue a class-action lawsuit.

Jackie Scott, 68, went to court after she was refused citizenship despite having come to Canada with her British mother and her Canadian father at the age of two and spending most of her life here. A judicial review of that denial was to have started Monday, but as the proceedings got underway, Scott chose to put the review on hold so she and her lawyers could expand the court action.

Click here to read original article on Vancouver Sun website

Scott had initially asked the court to determine whether she was a citizen or not.

But “it’s not just about me,” Scott told reporters afterward, saying she could not in good conscience become a Canadian without doing everything she can to help other “lost” individuals.

Scott was born in England in 1945 to a Canadian serviceman father and a British mother and later migrated to Canada.

The government claims that Scott’s father was legally considered a British subject at the time because Canada’s first citizenship act did not come into effect until 1947.

“What happened today is quite interesting and it’s going to result in a historic decision as to what a Canadian is and when Canadians actually came into being,” one of Scott’s lawyers, James Straith, said outside the court.

“What we hope to do now is come back and get a final order from the court where the court finds not just in Jackie Scott’s case, but in every one of these cases of Lost Canadians,” Straith said.

The government argued in a written response to Scott’s application for judicial review that “Canadian citizenship is a creation of federal statute. In order to become a Canadian citizen, a person must satisfy the applicable statutory requirements.”

But Straith said he finds that claim very troubling.

If the government is “able to maintain that citizenship is only something that is defined by Parliament, and not simply defined by the law and Constitution of Canada, then they have a lot more flexibility on what they can do with citizenship and where they can allow and deny citizenship,” said Straith.

Scott’s decision to expand the court action came after Judge Luc Martineau refused to allow a government document to be brought before the court.

The document — a 1943 pamphlet issued to Canadian soldiers — deals “with the historic rights of Canadians as they were going overseas,” said Straith.

It states that the soldiers “were fighting as citizens of Canada, not as merely British subjects,” he said.

But due to the narrow nature of a judicial review, such a document is not permitted. Scott and her lawyers decided a trial setting could lead to a more meaningful ruling.

“Then the court can make a finding, binding on everyone, that as a matter of fact Canadian citizens did or did not exist prior to January 1, 1947,” said Straith. “It’s an opportunity to get this dealt with once and for all.”

Scott’s judicial review has been adjourned in the meantime. Over the next few weeks, she and her lawyers will determine whether to pursue a class-action lawsuit, or petition the court for a declaratory statement.

Although the timeline is still uncertain, Scott should be back in front of a judge sometime in September. Her new action may still be denied, in which case the judicial review will go forward.

How many people might be affected by a class action or declaratory statement is unclear.

“I would guess that there are probably several thousand people that are affected like Jackie,” said Don Chapman, the founder of the Lost Canadians.

But “the problem is you don’t know,” he said.

When the federal government overhauled its citizenship laws in 2009, approximately 750,000 Lost Canadians gained citizenship. However, because the changes only applied to those born in or after 1947, individuals like Scott were excluded.

And although Scott said it would have been nice to leave the court Monday with confirmation that she’s Canadian, she knows she’s not the only one affected by a feeling of statelessness.

“We’ll eventually be all dead — we’re a bunch of senior citizens,” she said of the remaining lost Canadians. “It’s like the government is waiting for (us) to go away through attrition.”

“I guess I’ll just have to be stubborn enough and stick around and make sure it’s resolved,” she said.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Lost+Canadian+hopes+overhaul+Canadian+citizenship+laws+court/8693865/story.html#ixzz2a4ISOEyH

Vancouver Observer: Landmark Lost Canadian court case could redefine citizenship law - The Lost Canadians court case starting in Vancouver could set a precedent for how the government deems people eligible for citizenship

A Department of National Defense Publication from 1943 which makes
frequent reference to Canadian citizenship.
(Minister of National Defense Edmond Cloutier, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1943. )


A historic Lost Canadians court case will begin today at the Federal Court of Canada in Vancouver. Scott's case, advocates say, could become to citizenship what the Roe v. Wade case was to abortion rights in the United States: more than just about one BC woman getting her citizenship card, it calls for a fundamental shift in the way the Canadian government treats citizenship.

"This isn't just about Jackie. This is about correcting the law for everybody," said citizenship advocate Don Chapman, who has been at the centre of the Lost Canadians issue for years.

"What's this court case really about? It's about equal rights for all Canadians."

Scott is the daughter of a British war bride and Canadian soldier who fought in the Second World War. After a lifetime believing herself Canadian, she found out in 2005 that she was not a citizen due to discriminatory laws against children born to unmarried parents, even though her parents later tied the knot and raised her in Ontario.

Most recently, officials also told her she could not be a citizen because at the time of her birth in 1945, her father was not yet a "citizen" -- not legally, anyway. According to former Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, every Canadian was a British subject prior to the 1947 Citizenship Act.

Scott's case isn't unique. While hundreds of thousands of Canadians got their citizenship in 2009 as a result of Chapman and other advocates' efforts, Scott was among others who remained excluded due to her birth date and the marital status of her parents.

Even though Citizenship and Immigration Canada has repeatedly told media that it does not discriminate based on age, gender or marital status, the exclusion of people like Scott bring focus to a troubling point that some Canadians don't have the same rights to citizenship as others.

Canadian government calls soldiers "Canadian citizens" in 1943



In a dramatic exchange between Scott and Kenney (who was replaced by Conservative MP Chris Alexander during last week's cabinet shuffle), Kenney tells Scott that soldiers like her father may have been heroes, but were "clearly not","obviously not" citizens during the war, since the official "Canadian Citizenship Act" (which extended citizenship to women, the disabled and minors) was only made law in 1947.

But, Scott argues, if there was truly no such thing as a Canadian citizen prior to that date, then what did the Canadian government mean by giving its soldiers an educational book in 1943 explaining that they were going to fight the war as "Canadian citizens"?



In the book, there are multiple references to "Canadian citizens" and "citizenship" throughout the first chapter.





Click here to read the entire article on the Vancouver Observer website

Scott argues that Canadian soldiers like her father considered themselves citizens, and were led to believe this by official government documents.

According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, though, the usage of the word in official documents doesn't mean people were actually citizens. A CIC representative explained in an email today that their emailed response from last July still holds:

"While Canadian citizenship didn’t exist prior to 1947, it is common usage to refer to people who were living her then as 'citizens', even though in law they would have been considered British subjects....Prior to 1947, there was no legal status of Canadian citizenship of general application as we understand it today."
But experts like University of Victoria law professor Don Galloway disagree, saying that citizenship existed in practice well before that year. He told the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in 2007:

"The simple idea is this: a Canadian citizen is a person in whose name the Government of Canada acts, and whose interests the Government of Canada has undertaken to promote...When did the Government of Canada start acting on behalf of Canadians? Was it in in 1947, or much earlier? The answer, I think, is obvious."
Asked whether or not the cost was a factor in the government's position (former Conservative MP Monte Solberg said that in 2006 that the issue "has implications for hundreds of statutes...and could cost tens of billions of dollars"), CIC spokesperson Sonia Lessange responded that:

"New legislation is anticipated at some point in the future. The details of the legislation will be made known at that time."
As to when that might be coming up, Lessange repeated the same response.

British subjects, Canadian citizens and aliens: the Asian Canadian history

Kenney had also told Scott that her father wasn't a citizen because everyone in Canada was a deemed a "British subject" prior to 1947.

But because "British subjects" weren't phased out in Canada until 1977, Chapman says, you could be both a Canadian citizen and a British subject.

What's more, people who weren't part of the British commonwealth in those days -- such as the Chinese -- were never considered British subjects to begin with. All Chinese in Canada, even the Canadian-born, were considered "aliens" and not British subjects. Back then, a handful of wealthy, successful Chinese Canadian could prove their case before a judge and become a naturalized British subject.

But even then, exceptions applied: in a 1938 Supreme Court case, a Chinese Canadian woman named Shin Shim was deemed a Canadian citizen, having been at risk of deportation despite being born in Victoria. Eight years later, the citizenship of Japanese Canadians came into question when the courts were trying to deport Canadian-born Japanese "back" to Japan, a country that many had never set foot in before. The Supreme Court ruled at the time that they were, in fact, Canadian citizens.

Some in the Chinese Canadian community are currently working with with Chapman to get government citizenship recognition for the Chinese Canadians who died during the Second World War -- such as pilot Quan Louie, after whom a lake in Burnaby is named. After all, if they were neither British subjects nor Canadian citizens, in what country's name did they fight and give up their lives?

A 'complete mess'

The Jackie Scott case, advocates say, is about changing existing citizenship law itself.

"The one thing that everyone can agree on is that right now, it's a complete mess," Chapman said.

Currently, citizenship is based on statute law, not constitutional law: courts have not yet found the Constitution to impose limitations on the way government gives and revokes citizenship.

Since the Citizenship Act has been changed numerous times over the years, citizenship in Canada has been arbitrary and changeable in the way it is granted and revoked.

Even though government can't deny citizenship to any child of an unmarried Canadian mother in 2013, it can still reject people like Scott on the basis of old laws that at the time of her birth that were heavily discriminatory against women.

In the same way that Scott was denied because her parents were unmarried, others have been rejected because they were born in wedlock to a Canadian mother (women at the time could not give citizenship to their children, whereas men could).

When questioned at a Surrey event last February whether the government discriminates based on race, age or gender, however, the then-immigration minister replied:

"No, citizenship isn't and shouldn't be. The Citizenship Act lays out who can become citizens and it is available to anyone ... regardless of marital status or age."
Chapman pulls up an article in The National Post, about a federal judge demanding "clearer" citizenship rules. The article quotes the judge urging government to "fix unclear citizenship requirements that kick some applicants out while welcoming others in, depending on which assessment is used."

Because of the lack of clarity, it's possible today for an overseas investor to claim citizenship by virtue of spending a minimal 1095 days in Canada over four years, while others can live and work in Canada and decades and have a Canadian parent, and still be rejected.

Chapman says there's only one sure way to prove one's citizenship, and it's not as easy as most people think.

"That," he said, pulling out his green birth certificate from his wallet, "doesn't prove that you're a citizen. Your passport isn't proof, because Jackie (Scott) had passports too, and that's not proof. Sitting on a jury isn't proof."

Pulling out his citizenship certificate, he says,

"See? That's proof."

The laminated citizenship card -- which costs a $75 fee -- is not something many Canadians have in their files.

In fact,there are many Canadians today (as many as 250,000, according to Chapman) who may not be able to definitively prove their citizenship if they were challenged by authorities to give evidence.

"We need a new Citizenship Act," he said. "One of the things that happened when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into play is government agencies were given three years to bring all their policies to charter compliance. There's only one law they didn't do that with -- citizenship. If they'd just done their job in 1985, we wouldn't be here."

Vancouver Sun; Daphne Bramham: Federal government parses patriotism in strange ways when defining citizenship Lives will depend on whether courts buy in to federal arguments about what is Canadian

Jacqueline Scott, left, talks to Joe Taylor, another so-called Lost Canadian,
outside court where Taylor’s battle was being heard in 2007.
Photograph by: Kim STALLKNECHT , Vancouver Sun
There is something discordant in the federal government’s view of citizenship and what it means to be Canadian.

Somehow it was important to spend more than $28 million marking the War of 1812 as a “Canadian” war.

Yet, repeatedly in Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal and even the Supreme Court, there is a complete avowal by the federal government that before 1947 there was any such thing as a Canadian.

Click here to read original article in the Vancouver Sun.

That means what historians have long said: The War of 1812 was a British war, not a Canadian one.

More surprisingly, Ottawa’s argument means that Canadians fighting during the Second World War are also not deemed to have been Canadian.

All of which would be just a mere curiosity if it weren’t for the fact that even now peoples’ lives and identity literally depends on the courts’ interpretation.

Jacqueline Scott is one of those people. The Surrey grandmother’s case begins Monday in the Federal Court of Appeal in Vancouver.

Scott’s father – James Ellis — was born in Canada and was serving in the Canadian Army when he met Winifred Lucy. Scott was born June 29, 1945 in England before her parents had a chance to marry.

Because she was born out of wedlock and illegitimate – to use the quaint, but hurtful terms of the day – Scott is not deemed to be Canadian.

Had her parents married before her birth, they would be no question that she like the thousands of other sons and daughters of servicemen and their war brides would have citizenship.

But they weren’t married until 1948 when Scott and her mother finally arrived in Canada. They didn’t come on one of the many ships that carried war brides and their children. They missed the boats because Scott was deathly ill and required several surgeries. The government-sponsored transport of brides and children had ended by the time Scott was well enough to travel.

The stigma of having had a child out of wedlock was so strong that Scott’s parents hid the fact from their daughter. Scott’s mother falsified her marriage certificate, backdating it to May 1945, which is why their big 50th wedding anniversary party was in 1995.

Somehow Scott found out about it when she was in her teens. After confronting her parents and demanding the truth, none of them ever spoke of it again.

Scott’s mother applied for and received Canadian citizenship in 1955.

But rather than applying under a special section for ‘legitimized’ ‘out-of-wedlock’ children, the Ellises chose not to pursue it on behalf of their daughter.

Bizarrely, federal government lawyers suggest in their response to Scott’s appeal that she was someone responsible for that decision.

“At that time [the 1950s], Mrs. Scott was directly confronted with the fact that she had not obtained citizenship by reason of her birth because her parents had not been married when she was born.”

Scott was 10 years old, hardly an age when she could – legally or otherwise — make her own choices. Even now, the Canadian government only accepts citizenship applications from people 18 and older.

In the intervening years, Scott went to school and worked in Ontario and later Vancouver. She paid taxes, voted in elections, married and gave birth to her daughter in Canada (which means that both Scott’s daughter and grandchildren are automatically Canadian).

In 1972, Scott’s husband got a job in the United States after the Vancouver company he worked for went bankrupt. In 2005 and lacking travel documents to go anywhere, Scott became an American. But only after she’d been denied a Canadian passport and told that she is not Canadian.

Pursuing Canadian citizenship then was not an option. Her mother was still alive and Scott didn’t want to embarrass her by bringing up the facts of her birth. But after her mother’s death, Scott set out to reclaim the citizenship that she believes is rightly hers.

Despite her American passport, Scott maintains that in her heart and mind she’s never been anything but Canadian. It’s not about getting government-funded health care – her husband’s retirement benefits already cover them. And it’s not about getting other benefits – both she and her husband already collect CPP based on their contributions before they moved to the United States.

What she wants is to be officially recognized for who she is: A Canadian daughter of a Canadian serviceman, a man both she and her mother loved and cherished.

But to get that Scott is trying to prove that this country has triply discriminated against her: First, by the legal interpretation that effectively renders her Canadian-born father NOT Canadian at the time of her birth; then, by the puritanical differentiating between ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ children; and, because of gender (had Scott’s mother been Canadian, Scott would automatically have been Canadian.)

Canada disagrees on all counts. But in the first round in Federal Court, it says if there was discrimination it was justifiable.

It maintains that position that Scott is not and never has been a Canadian.

But because Scott has long surpassed the three-year residency requirement to apply for citizenship, the government lawyers note that if she really wants to be a Canadian, she can fill out the forms, pay her $200 and hope for the best.
dbramham@vancouversun.com

Click here to read original article in the Vancouver Sun. 

CTV: Decades-long citizenship fight getting its day in court

Jackie Scott, 68, is shown in this handout photo in Surrey B.C.
on Thursday July 18, 2013. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/HO)
Diana Mehta,
The Canadian Press

Jackie Scott has been waiting years to be officially accepted by her country.

The 68-year-old was raised in Ontario, paid her taxes and voted in elections. But a dizzying tangle of old laws have meant the government doesn't consider her a Canadian.

 Click here to read original article on CTV website

Now, her long, drawn-out fight to be recognized may be reaching its climax as her case is set to have its day in court on Monday.

As she considers all she's gone through to get to this point, Scott's voice cracks with emotion.

 "The feeling of being rejected by your country is pretty devastating. You feel like the orphan child that's being pushed aside," she tells The Canadian Press. "I am anxious, apprehensive, hopeful, all of those things, because we never know, do we, what way the justice system will go." Scott was born in England in 1945 to a Canadian serviceman father and a British mother. Her parents later wed and raised her in Canada. The government has argued in court documents that because Scott was born abroad out of wedlock two years before the country's first citizenship act came into effect, she has no claim to citizenship through her Canadian father.

The government has told the court in written submissions that Scott's father was legally considered a British subject at the time and not a Canadian citizen.

"That really upset me," says Scott. "He was a soldier who fought for his country."

If Scott's mother had been Canadian, or if her parents had been married at the time of her birth abroad, she could have a claim to Canadian citizenship.

That situation has made Scott one of the so-called "lost Canadians" who fell through the cracks of the country's citizenship legislation.

When the government overhauled its citizenship laws in 2009, children born abroad out of wedlock were given equal rights to citizenship, but only if they were born in 1947 or later.

The legal cut off leaves Scott and other seniors like her squatters in their own country with, in her opinion, the government doing little to help.

"Are they waiting for this to be handled through attrition?" she asks. "All they need to do is just wait for a few more years and we're not going to be around, so it just goes away."

Documents show Scott's father tried to get a citizenship certificate for his wife and daughter in 1954. While Scott's mother's application was approved, officials told Scott's parents they should apply for their daughter's citizenship under a different section of the former citizenship act. The government has noted that over the years, Scott's parents did not go forward with that application.

Scott didn't even realize she wasn't a Canadian until her request for a citizenship certificate was denied in 2005.

After the shock wore off, she tried three more times, unsuccessfully, to be recognized as a citizen. The multiple rejections eventually drove her to file an application for judicial review which asks Federal Court to recognize her as a Canadian.

"It's hard," she says of her prolonged fight. "I'm really proud of my country. I'm proud of being here. I'm proud that my daughter is Canadian, my grandchildren are Canadian. But on the other hand, how do you handle being rejected?"

Scott is now a snowbird, splitting her time between Surrey, B.C., and Arizona. She was able to take on U.S. citizenship in 2005 because her husband worked in the States, but she maintains she did so only because she was desperate.

Not being recognized as a Canadian citizen means a lack of long-term security.

"As I come through the Canadian border, they tell me I'm a visitor," says Scott.

A spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada says the government's amendments to the citizenship act have resolved the vast majority of "lost Canadian" cases.

"While it is impossible to know how many remaining cases were not addressed in 2009, the information available suggests the number is small," Sonia Lesage said in an email.

 "Anyone who has been living in Canada most of their life and has the mistaken belief that they are a Canadian citizen, may be eligible for a discretionary grant of citizenship."

Those grants, says Lesage, are made on a case-by-case basis to relieve special and unusual hardship or to reward exceptional service to Canada.

Scott says she applied for such a grant but was turned down.

Lesage added that former Citizenship and Immigration minister Jason Kenney has said new legislation making further amendments to the citizenship act "is anticipated at some point in the near future."

Documents submitted in court show the government suggests Scott can apply for citizenship the way many immigrants who are permanent residents do -- by meeting certain residency requirements and submitting an application to be considered a new Canadian.

 That, Scott's lawyer contends, is not what's wanted.

 "There's a point we're making here, that she always has been a Canadian, she never ceased being a Canadian," says James Straith.

"This is one of those situations that cries out for some resolution."

The government also maintains that Scott's charter rights have not been violated, because the original citizenship act that caused her problems no longer exists.

But Straith disputes that argument as well, suggesting Scott is being discriminated against because she was born abroad to an unmarried, non-Canadian mother.

 "She had been rejected before under the old act and then applied again under the new act, which is subject to the charter," he says. "In this day and age discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal."

While Scott is becoming the face of a low-profile but perplexing issue, Straith says there are many others like her who could benefit if the courts rule in her favour.

 "We're hoping that this gives some more judicial guidance in regard to what has to be done in these situations," he says.

 "What should happen is the government should just say, 'Right, we've got to fix the legislation."'

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/decades-long-citizenship-fight-getting-its-day-in-court-1.1374135#ixzz2ZpSYu9Ic

New Citizenship Minister Faces 65 year old Problem That Won't Go Away War bride child fights for citizenship in Federal Court

Jackie Scott is the daughter of a British War Bride and a
Canadian Second World War veteran.

A Surrey, B.C. woman who arrived in Canada 65 years ago with her British war bride mother is fighting for her citizenship in the Federal Court of Canada. Because she was born before her parents’ marriage, she is excluded from citizenship by a technicality in Canada’s pre-1977 citizenship law.

Click here to download relevent court documents http://www2.lostcanadian.com/documents/Respondent-Memorandum-of-Fact-and-Law.pdf

http://www2.lostcanadian.com/documents/T-418-12-Jackie-Scott-Application-Record-filed-March-26-2013.pdf

Jackie Scott was born in England in 1945 to a Canadian father and a British mother. She was born out of wedlock because her father, a Canadian soldier of the Second World War, could not get the required permission to marry. Such cases were common and inevitable under wartime conditions.

After the war, Ms Scott’s father was repatriated to Canada and demobilized. His daughter’s arrival in Canada was delayed because she required medical treatment in England. She arrived in Canada with her mother in 1948 and her parents were married in Toronto shortly afterwards. Under Ontario law, Ms Scott was legitimated from birth by her parents’ marriage, but she is still excluded from citizenship by the continuing application of a discriminatory provision of the 1946 Canadian Citizenship Act. Before 1977, children born abroad out of wedlock were citizens only if the mother was Canadian. Ms Scott has applied to the Federal Court for judicial review of her exclusion from citizenship.

The Lost Canadians group, which is supporting Ms Scott’s case, has unearthed two similar cases from 1948 and 1949 in which a child born abroad out of wedlock to parents who later married was ruled to be a natural-born Canadian citizen. The cases were discovered a year ago on a microfilm in the National Archives in Ottawa.

The late Tom Kent (1922-2011) served briefly in the 1960s as deputy minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In 2009, asked to comment on a case similar to Ms Scott’s, he replied: “[E]xclusion from citizenship, in cases such as you describe, is entirely contrary to the philosophy of Canadian citizenship as I have always understood it. The people you know have not been treated fairly. The dismissive attitude of officials, as reported, should be unacceptable to the Minister”.

Ms Scott’s case will be heard on July 22 in the Federal Court in Vancouver. She is represented by James (Jay) Straith of Straith Litigation Chambers, West Vancouver. Copies of the documents filed in court by both sides are available on line at: 

http://www2.lostcanadian.com/documents/Respondent-Memorandum-of-Fact-and-Law.pdf

http://www2.lostcanadian.com/documents/T-418-12-Jackie-Scott-Application-Record-filed-March-26-2013.pdf

Vancouver Observer: Canadian military couple fights for adopted child's right to citizenship

Sarah Currie and Smith. Photo from Vancouver Observer.
Not Canadian enough?
Sarah Currie and her husband Mike are an Ottawa-based couple looking forward to bringing a child in their lives: 23-month-old Smith, a boy currently living in a Haitian orphanage.

Click here to read original article in the Vancouver Observer

But what should be a joyful moment is clouded by the fact that the federal government has rejected the couple's application to pass down citizenship to their son, due to an obscure legal technicality that puts foreign-born Canadians at a disadvantage. 

Sarah and Mike are thoroughly Canadian. Both are descended from multiple generations of Canadians. They live in Canada and pay their taxes. Their parents on both sides served in the Canadian Armed Forces, and

Mike has done three tours in Afghanistan (his last name can’t be used because he’s still on active duty).

But here's the problem: Mike and Sarah were both born in Germany while their parents were working for the military. According to changes made to Bill C-37 in 2009, born-abroad Canadians can't transfer their citizenship to their children if those children weren’t born in Canada.

In what Currie has called a “slap in the face”, authorities denied the couple's application to transfer their Canadian citizenship to Smith. Had they simply been born in Canada, or had they been naturalized immigrants, this would not have posed a problem.

Lost Canadians: the new generation

Currie could still apply to bring Smith into Canada as a permanent resident. But it's not the same, she argues.

“There’s quite a difference between coming to Canada as a citizen and coming to Canada as a permanent resident,” Currie explained. “As a permanent resident he’ll come here on a Haitian passport. So when we leave Haiti, we have to fly directly to Canada. We cannot even have a layover in the United States, he’d require a visa to enter the United States, even for 30 minutes.”

The couple's situation highlights a persisting problem with Canadian citizenship law that has created “Lost Canadians”, a group of legitimate Canadians who either lost or never attained citizenship due to outdated laws which discriminate based on gender and marital status. While 95 per cent of Lost Canadian citizenship claims were resolved by Bill C-37, an Act to Amendment the Citizenship Act, the amendment also stripped some Canadians, like Sarah and Mike, of their basic citizenship rights.

Bill C-37 guarantees citizenship to children of Armed Forces personnel and diplomats born abroad. But second generation children born abroad are not guaranteed Canadian citizenship and could be rendered stateless, a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Not "Canadians of convenience"

The main reason why the Canadian government amended citizenship law to exclude second generation children born abroad was to address what was dubbed in the media as “Canadians of convenience”: in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, the government spent $94 million evacuating Canadian "citizens" from Lebanon, some of whom were generations removed from Canada or dual citizens who spent most of their time abroad. The government placed the cut-off date at first generation born abroad, but to Currie, this unfairly punishes legitimate Canadians serving their country who happened to be born beyond the borders.

“If they want to fix the problem of dual citizenship, they should fix dual citizenship,” she said.

“Some people are born outside Canada because they have no other choice and those people – soldiers, children born to diplomats – all of these people are sent overseas to serve and to represent Canada and their children should then be treated as though they were born on Canadian soil.”

Back in Canada's capital, their anxiety is mounting as Smith’s adoption date rapidly approaches. They have already wasted 10 months applying for and being denied citizenship for Smith despite having consulted representatives from the CIC’s own call centre and an immigration lawyer who told them they wouldn’t have a problem securing citizenship for Smith. The process is said to usually take 10 weeks.

The couple have received support from MP Jim Karygiannis , who has sent an application directly to the Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and has helped them build an online petition to support their son's citizenship.

Sarah and Mike are still waiting to hear whether young Smith will start his life in Canada as a full Canadian or as a Lost Canadian. Citizenship and Immigration Canada has not responded to the Vancouver Observer's questions.

Click here to read original article in the Vancouver Observer