Up way too early, the story that pops out to me is more of this stuff about being a citizen and the politics that goes along with it. Last year it was just about Conrad...again...and his need to undo his abandonment of his citizenship for the splendors that no doubt awaited him. Now, it appears that the Canadian citizenship is not enough for some and that some (and therefore all) of us could end up being double-citizens:
The Liberals charged that Bill 195, a PQ bill to establish Quebec citizenship, would create two types of Quebecers. PQ members have been on the defensive over Bill 195 which states that Quebec citizenship would be required to run for school board, municipal or national assembly elections. Canadian citizenship alone, however, would still be sufficient to vote in those same elections.That is a sort of interesting notion but is it really that different from residency requirements? It's been established by the Supreme Court back around the time of the Charlottetown Accord referendum that the requirement that you are in a province for six months before getting to vote is acceptable. Are other attributes of a different class than residency? Maybe they are. But calling a set of standards like that "citizenship" is odd in that the word denotes a relationship with the sovereign and in Canada it's the same sovereign whether you are talking about a province or the Federal realm.
No, much odder is the news that other Canadians might not be citizens at all:
Before current citizenship laws came into effect in 1977, a Canadian whose father took out citizenship in another country effectively lost his or her citizenship as well because women and children were considered chattel of the father. The law also affects border babies and war brides and their children if they failed to register their citizenship before their 24th birthday. University of Victoria demographer Barry Edmonston, who lost his citizenship in a similar manner, has estimated at least 250,000 Canadians are at risk of losing their citizenship. The government has said the law affects only 450 people.Just around a 180,000% difference of opinion. No biggie given what fickle stuff citizenship is around these parts.
Comments
Ben (The Tiger) - October 23, 2007 9:10 am
The language requirements are almost certainly unconstitutional -- the idea that Canadian citizens could be not allowed to run for a provincial legislative assembly violates s. 3 of the Charter on its face.
As for the other topic, nationality law got silly in the late 19th century, when governments started to co-ordinate to try to eliminate dual citizenship. They moved from individual-based laws to head-of-family-based laws.
Hans - October 23, 2007 9:57 am
Its probaby the idea of Quebec "citizenship" versus Quebec "residency" that will be problematic especially since there is no such thing as Quebec citizenship.
Alan - October 23, 2007 10:05 am
There was no Canadian citizenship for the first 80 years of the nation's existence.
Ben (The Tiger) - October 23, 2007 10:31 am
Hey, if we all could go back to "British subject" status and have the right to live in a quarter of the world's countries, I'd totally take it. It was a bad deal to lose.
But I guess we can't do that, what with the bad governance (governments) and poverty in many of the Commonwealth's African and Asian countries.
sean liddle - October 23, 2007 10:36 am
"Rickett Elementary" ??
I for one have no issue with declaring a portion of canada, being all of quebec, the national capital region and parts of New Brunswick, as not just officially bilingual as we all are (and should be) but as an area where you have to speak both official languages to hold public office. Note I did not say one of the officla languages.. both.
I also do not think that someone should be able to hold dual citizenship or landed immigant status for more than a couple of years or the duration of a work permit for research or academic positions.
but thats just me.
Renee - October 23, 2007 11:45 am
Although, don't forget that if you're a Canadian Citizen living out of the country you still have to pay Canadian income tax. And can't collect any social services (inc pension) until you've been back for six months. So dual citizenship is at least expensive if you're not living here. Our dual citizenship allowance is not without its strings; it costs to be a Canadian citizen living abroad, even in a country you're also a citizen of. It seems like a good deal to me.
Renee - October 23, 2007 11:48 am
(in response to the post, though - the bill is obviously a cynical attempt to shore up the faltering separatist movement. Alas, it's different from residency requirements because it says it's different. It's a formal swearing of loyalty to the province. Which, as a Canadian with a federalist bent, annoys the heck out of me).