bout de papier, Vol. 23, No. 2 (2007) — Fall 2007 // Automne 2007, pp. 30–35
This essay is an introduction to a large, complex and delicate subject. It enquires into whether and, if so, how the rights of Canadian citizenship should be balanced with effective statutory duties and responsibilities. It discusses the underlying changes, including the Citizenship Act of 1977, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CR&F) of 1982 and the Multiculturalism Act of 1988, attended by the steady flow of immigration, that have influenced political and social attitudes. One of the emerging consequences is the issue of dual nationality and its policy implications at home and abroad. It concludes with proposed approaches to a formula.
Why is this a matter of concern?
Over the last year or two there have been calls for diplomatic intervention and assistance from Canadians with dual nationality in difficulty abroad. The issue came to the fore over the plight of Lebanese-Canadian citizens visiting or residing in Lebanon during the outbreak of hostilities in 2006. Questions were asked both in Parliament and in the media concerning the Canadian government’s responsibility to protect dual citizens in trouble in their country of origin, particularly in respect of residents who had ceased to be taxpayers in Canada. Other situations include Italian-Canadian, French-Canadian, US-Canadian and Iraqi-Canadian dual nationals who have cast votes in Canada for elections in their country of origin. Italian-Canadians also voted in Canada for other resident Italian-Canadians to represent them in the Italian parliament, which invests Italy with extra-territorial claims over Italian-Canadians in Canada, and permits those dual citizens to participate in legislative elections in both the countries of origin and adoption. Moreover, recent cases in Iran and China prompted questions about the Canadian government’s responsibility towards Canadian dual nationals who have been detained or imprisoned in their country of origin and who seek protection from the Canadian government.
Dual nationality: its implication and consequences
Nationality defines the relationship between the state and its citizens. Our current Citizenship Act of 1974-75-76 (1977) no longer prohibits Canadian citizens from holding dual nationalities. This means, however, that allegiance and its inherent commitments are bound equally to Canada and another country, both of which also have corresponding legal claims on the holder. The question arises as to which country a Canadian dual citizen owes allegiance and feels committed to in situations of conflicting national interests or loyalties.
To which country’s call does the virtue of patriotism respond? To put this question in context: the vistas of economic opportunities and political and social freedoms in western societies have attracted large migratory movements from economically disadvantaged countries, particularly those with authoritarian regimes. These migratory movements have in turn been accompanied by the growth of dual nationality. In 2005 there were six million foreign-born new Canadian citizens. Of these, some estimates indicate that over 700,000 Canadian citizens, and possibly about three times as many living abroad (including in their countries of origin), hold dual nationality.
Under international law, the country of adoption, e.g. Canada, is entitled to protect its citizens abroad except in the case where dual nationals are visiting or residing in their country of origin. This is made clear on the last page of Canadian passports, as follows: “Canadians may have dual nationality through birth, descent, marriage or naturalization. They are advised that while in the country of their other nationality they may be subject to all its laws and obligations, including military service.” This is particularly important where the country of origin affirms its claim by neither allowing the renunciation of its nationality nor accepting the nationality of the adopted country: to wit, Mrs. Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian-Canadian national who, while visiting Iran as a Canadian photographer/journalist, was considered an Iranian citizen, subject exclusively to Iranian laws. Declared in contravention of security rules, she was detained and tortured. Moreover, dual nationals falling afoul of the authorities in a third country may be deported at that country’s discretion to either the country of origin or the country of adoption, or even another country: to wit, a Syrian-Canadian national, Mr. Maher Arar, was deported from the USA to Jordan and then Syria; and Mr. Husseyin Celil, a Chinese-Canadian, was deported from Uzbekistan to China. In the case of both Iran and China, Canadian representations were rebuffed as foreign interference in an internal matter affecting their own citizens.
Renunciation of the nationality of the country of origin may require the negotiation of a consular agreement, on a case-by-case basis. Our own Governor General and Commander-in-Chief, the Rt. Hon. Michaëlle Jean, had to seek the agreement of the French government to part with her French citizenship. The leader of the official opposition, the Hon. Stephane Dion, also a dual citizen of Canada and France, proposes, if necessary but not necessarily, to follow suit. Not to do so would set a questionable precedent, implying the legitimacy of dual nationality for holders of the highest politica offices of the land. As citizenship is defined as a legal rather than a sentimental attachment, this also raises the question whether or not dual nationality compromises the expectation of absolute commitment to Canada and Canadians from their public servants, particularly from those in positions of authority. Since a majority of Canadians favours Canada as a country of peacekeepers, this would presume that conflicts of interest or of nationalities are unlikely to arise and test the allegiance of dual citizens. But such conflicts can and do arise: in Bosnia and Kosovo, Canadians confronted each other in the service of Serbia, Croatia and the UN respectively; or in past Arab-Israeli wars, Canadian dual nationals served in the Israeli armed forces. If challenged, the CR&F may allow Canadians with dual allegiances to choose who to fight for, so long as they do not contravene Canadian security laws. In a diverse society of Canadians from about 140 countries of origin, it is perhaps inconceivable that Canadian public opinion would countenance war except in defence of Canadian borders, or in compliance with a UN Security Council mandate, which could then be defended domestically on the grounds that all the countries of origin represented by dual nationals in Canada would also be bound by their respective UN Charter obligations.
How do we, as Canadians, therefore, identify ourselves, or wish to be perceived internationally? Is Canadian citizenship to be janus-like, hyphenated: half-country of origin, half-Canadian, with two passports of convenience? Or are dual nationals just post-modern citizens with rights to the 100% protection of the passports of two countries with 50% responsibility to each?
Rights and responsibilities of citizenship are found in a booklet issued by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (C&l-143-02-04E) to assist applicants for citizenship. It includes the oath of citizenship: to “be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.” This same oath is applied to Members of Parliament and Senators. And yet what does “be faithful and bear true allegiance” and fulfilling “duties (unspecified) as a Canadian citizen” mean for MPs and Senators holding dual nationality, who legislate and determine Canadian domestic and foreign policy and who apparently believe that dual nationality lends an additional perspective which enriches Canadian political discourse and policy formulation? Is this how we can best define and protect the Canadian national interest? Perhaps this does not matter; it is the natural, evolutionary offshoot of a post-modern, multicultural, multinational state. In any event, dual nationality is not only allowed by law, but also protected by the CR&F: (*Part I, General Section 26: The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada”; and “Section 27: The Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.”).
A recent (June, 2007) Ipsos/Reid poll found that 75% of Canadians aged 18-34 endorse current policy allowing Canadians to hold dual citizenship, and that 50% of older Canadians support the idea. In the present climate of public opinion, and given the legitimacy of dual nationality, the Canadian government would be hard put to disallow it. The dual national constituencies would contend that the Charter ethos now prevails in Canada and that in any event we have passed the point of no return. So long as one respects Canadian laws, pays taxes, participates in the local community, votes in municipal, provincial and federal elections and exercises rights under the CR&F, promises as citizens of Canada are deemed fulfilled. Is this how Canadian citizenship can be best defined? Others may regard these points as reflecting a rather convenient, if not narrow concept of Canadian citizenship. It should be remembered that the present-day Canada that welcomes migrants as its own owes its existence to early settlers and those who followed in the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These pioneers made their contribution in their own way, harnessing resources from a harsh land in an unforgiving climate with human sacrifice, and giving their all in 1812, 1914-18, 1939-45, 1950-53 and more recently in the Gulf War and Afghanistan, with an unfailing sense of Canadian nationhood. Collectively, they provided for a free society, national institutions of democratic governance, an independent judiciary and an apolitical public service committed to serving the elected government of the day. Should not these efforts inspire and give meaning to Canadian citizenship? Or do we now say that was then and this is now? That is, we have progressed from nation-building to globalization, and in a “flat” world of increasingly multicultural, ethnically diversified societies the notion of nationhood or nationality becomes almost anachronistic. One’s real core identity would be defined by descent, heritage, background and culture, which carry enduring attachments to a place or country of origin. Yet, while globalization has wired the world with a network of supply chains transacting electronically from one end to the other in “real time,” it does not appear to have diminished conflict, national ferment or cultural/ ethnic/religious tensions, reflecting frustrated aspirations of national self-determination. Therefore, as Canada continues to be a nation state welcoming migrants at the official target rate of 250,000 a year, it would seem important that, while maintaining and celebrating respective traditional cultures, there should develop a binding sense of nationhood that builds on and preserves the knowledge of Canadian history, institutions and ethos. Is this achievable in light of current legislation, practices and public opinion?
Proposed approaches: a Charter of Canadian Citizenship
If Canadian citizenship is to mean more than rights and freedoms, the observance of laws and voluntary civic participation, should we then not consider a charter to impart an unambiguous commitment to Canada and primacy to its citizenship?
The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines a charter as a written grant of rights by a sovereign or legislature. It is generally silent on corresponding duties or responsibilities. These may be assumed to be covered by convention, an unwritten social compact or customary law: “you shall obey the law, pay your taxes and exercise your vote.” Unlike new Canadians, native Canadians are not required to pass an examination and take an oath of allegiance to qualify for the grant of citizenship. For uniformity of coverage and application, a Charter of Canadian Citizenship (CCC) could take the form of a social compact defining the relationship between the State and Canadians. It would cover: (i) the state’s obligations under the Constitution and laws of Canada to protect Canadian citizens at home and abroad; and (ii) the duties and responsibilities of Canadian citizens with a commitment to Canada and Canadians as true and loyal subjects: (a) by allegiance to the Head of State and Government of Canada, (b) by observance of the Constitution and laws of Canada, (c) by respect for the Canadian Flag and other national symbols, for historical traditions and conventions, for Canadian common values and for national institutions and their history; and (d) by exercising the right to vote in federal and provincial elections, and to participate in community affairs. It would also make clear the government’s obligations with respect to dual nationals visiting or residing in their country of origin, where they may be liable to its exclusive jurisdiction. It would articulate agreed common consent on duties and responsibilities of citizenship and allow for the payment of Canadian taxes by dual citizens residing in their country of origin, so as to maintain their entitlement to participation in Canadian elections and to social services when visiting Canada. It would explain that in the event of deportation of dual nationals from a third country, the government could not assure their direct return to Canada. The CCC could also indicate the need for voluntary national service (civilian or military) in the event of national emergency or threat of hostilities where Canadian national interests or international undertakings are involved.
While the Official Secrets Act and a security clearance should provide a guarantee protecting the government, it is not clear that these would necessarily exempt a Canadian dual citizen holding public office or in designated positions from possible legal claims of the country of origin on the allegiance of its national. It also begs the question whether Canadian diplomats and their wives/partners or children holding dual nationality would be fully covered by diplomatic immunity when posted in their country of origin; or whether they would be (discreetly or by common consent) ineligible for such assignments. If dual citizenship cannot be disallowed as a requirement of Canadian citizenship, it would be prudent to stipulate in the CCC that, at the very least, exclusive Canadian citizenship would be a prerequisite for Order-in-Council appointments and for public servants in designated positions or occupations involving national responsibilities or national security, and to provide, where necessary, for consular agreements for the renunciation of the nationality of the country of origin.
Is a Charter enough?
In conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada is a party, the Multiculturalism Act provides that “persons belonging to ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities shall not be denied the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion or to use their own language.” The Act goes on to declare as the policy of the government, inter alia, to recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage; “to foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and evolving expressions of those cultures. “ The Minister may, inter alia, “provide support to individuals, groups or organizations for the purpose of preserving, enhancing and promoting multiculturalism in Canada; and may undertake such other projects and programs in respect of multiculturalism, not assigned to any other tederal institution, as are designed to promote the multiculturalism policy of Canada.”
These provisions illustrate the purport of the Act, which underlines both their necessity and importance in an evolving diverse society. Yet, taking the Act as a whole, there seems to be a missing complementary component, a connection with Canadian history and the visionary, nation-building attitudes of mind that informed the evolution of Canadian institutions and governance and which could help forge a fully committed Canadian identity. This reveals the consequential need to sustain and enliven the CCC with greater emphasis on the teaching of Canadian history and institutions, especially for the young: to provide a common history for a common geography. As the former Governor General, the Rt. Hon. Adrienne Glarkson, said in her speech on Canada Day 2001, History does not begin the day you (are born or) arrive in Canada.” To follow up this insightful observation by a foreign-born Canadian, one possible approach would be for the CCC to authorize (through a federal/ provincial protocol and inspired political will?) a common Canadian history curriculum. This could be combined with the Dominion Institute’s proposal to enhance Canadian civic literacy by including civics as a compulsory subject for high school graduation. Taken together, they would help develop a collective historical memory that would strengthen the fabric of Canadian society and the viability of its democratic institutions.
In the absence of such complementary educational provisions, do we not risk the incremental dilution of our past, letting it fade into oblivion? The afore-mentioned Ipsos/Reid poll found that “Canadians are less knowledgeable now than they were a decade ago about their country, history, culture or geography.” The perpetuation of such a trend, abetted by the cohesive ties of individual cultures, could well lead to the fragmentation of society and the country. Does this represent the enviable Canadian mosaic? Every mosaic needs a glue which binds all the pieces together into a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. That is the precious quality underlying Canadian nationhood and values, which it is the obligation of its citizens to preserve and cherish.
Conclusion
In sum, a CCC would provide the necessary glue to integrate diversity within the unity of the Canadian mosaic. It would embrace the principles and purposes of the CR&F and of the Multiculturalism Act and, by recognizing our past, also confer the full dignity of (unhyphenated) Canadian citizenship. Holding such citizenship would be a privilege. It would also pay tribute with dutiful respect for our present and more so for our past. National unity seems to have been addressed mainly through the prism of federal/provincial relations. A CCC with its complementary, statutory and public dimension provides a coherent, inclusive and firm underpinning to national unity.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 23, No. 2 (2007) — Fall 2007 // Automne 2007, pp. 30–35. Read the rest of this issue →
