[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Canadian nationality law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The meaning of "Canadian National" under the 1921 Act

[edit]

There seems to be a contradiction in the article regarding the term "Canadian National", as created in the Canadian Nationals Act 1921. In a section near the top of the page it says, "A separate additional status of "Canadian national" was created under the Canadian Nationals Act, 1921, in order that Canada could participate in international forces or military expeditions separately from Britain." However, in a section near the end of the article it says that it gave people the possibility "to renounce their "Canadian citizenship" (renamed Canadian Nationality)". Surely it must be one or the other, so either a separate additional status or a renaming of the original status? I am curious about this Act as it's very short and I would like to know why it was created. Chocoholic2017 (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the confusion. Although the actual wording of the 1921 Act is quite puzzling, it is safe to assume that the term "Canadian citizenship" was replaced by "Canadian National" since 1921. Paragraph 1(a) of the 1921 Act stated that the 1910 Act was "heretofore amended" by the 1921 Act, and even though an amended version of the 1910 Act is not found, the two terms were basically interchangeable at that point as wives of British subjects automatically acquired British subject status under the British 1914 Act, while children born to British subject fathers were also British subjects under that Act. IMHO the 1921 Act's intention was merely to provide a path for persons with connections to other parts of the British Empire to voluntarily abandon their Canadian domicile, as it was impossible for a person born in Canada to do so prior to 1921. Persons who renounced their Canadian Nationality would therefore forfeit their right to become a Canadian citizen when it was created in 1947. C-GAUN (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise! Many thanks for your reply. Chocoholic2017 (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, guess another apology is in order as I have to contradict my previous statements. The 1927 version of Revised Statue of Canada continued to use "Canadian citizen" instead of "Canadian National" in its amended version of Immigration Act 1910, so it is clear that Canadian National is a separate category. Now I am unsure whether the renunciation of Canadian Nationality would lead to the loss of "Canadian citizenship", although it is almost certain that it would lead to the loss Canadian domicile. The 1927 RSC is available online from HeinOnline but is not normally accessible to those without an active university subscription. C-GAUN (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any figures on loss of citizenship?

[edit]

Are there any figures on how many people with Canadian citizenship have it removed each year whether through compulsory or voluntary means? Maybe that wouldn't be relevant enough for this article but it would put things in perspective. Chocoholic2017 (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of section "British Nationality law in Canadian history"

[edit]

I'm inclined to remove that section entirely, and replace it with a short section on "evolution of Canadian citizenship law" - just point form summary of the legislation leading to the 1947 Act. This article is about Canada's current nationality law, not the history - there is a very detailed article on that, which this article links to. I really don't see the relevance of the Statute of Westminster or the Patriation resolution to Canada's current citizenship law, nor the long exposition of colony to nation. That's what the history article is for. As I see it, this article is about the current citizenship laws. Thoughts? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going once, going twice ... Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly gone! No comment since March, so silence is consensus. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed section re Inuit and First Nations

[edit]

I have put up a "Disputed" notice for the section of the article dealing with Inuit and First Nations, because I think it is incorrect. The text asserts that Inuit and First Nations born before 1947 did not acquire Canadian citizenship because they were not British subjects. There are two difficulties with this section.

First, the Citizenship Act, 1946 provided that any person born in Canada before the Act came into force was a "natural-born Canadian citizen". The article incorrectly states that the Act "declared that British subjects who were born in Canada before 1947" acquired Canadian citizenship. That's not what s. 4 of the Act provided: "4. A person, born before the commencement of this Act, is a natural-born Canadian citizen if: -- (a) he was born in Canada..." Citizenship was based on birth in Canada, not being a British subject (unless in an individual case the person had become an "alien", that is, acquired citizenship in some other country). There is nothing in the Citizenship Act, 1946, that says Inuit or First Nations persons are excluded from this grant of citizenship based on birth in Canada. (Full text of the Citizenship Act, 1946 is available here.)

Second, the article simply asserts that Inuit and First Nations persons were not British subjects, prior to 1947. It does not provide any authority for that assertion. In any event, s. 4 of the Act grants citizenship based on birth in Canada, not on being a British subject (except if there is an issue of alienisation).

Unless someone can provide reliable sources for the assertion that Inuit and First Nations persons born in Canada before 1947 did not acquire citizenship in the same way as any other person born in Canada, I think this section should be deleted. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section in the History of Canadian nationality law which explains the 1956 amendment; I have copied it ot the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946 page. The parliamentary debates for the 1956 Act explain its purpose: a small group of Inuit/First Nations had entered Yukon from Alaska sometime before 1947 without making formal application to enter Canada. The federal government wanted to confer citizenship on them, since they had been living in Canada for 10 years by then. The 1956 amendment was aimed at that small group. It was not a general statement that all First Nations/Inuit born before 1947 were not citizens. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This entire discussion shows the risks of relying exclusively on statutory provisions for a wikipedia article, which are primary sources and are subject to interpretation. However, if it is true that First Nations / Inuit born before 1947 did not become Canadian citizens, that is a significant fact that should be easily demonstrated by secondary sources. I've not found any such sources. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed section of the article says that no First Nations or Inuit born before 1947 became citizens, and that this "legal loophole" was closed by a federal statute in 1956, which provided Canadian citizenship retroactively to all First Nations and Inuit born in Canada before that date. However, that's not what the federal minister, Jack Pickersgill, said was the purpose of the amendment when he explained it in the debates in the House of Commons:
"The first of the other two sections has to do with a very limited number of Indians and Eskimos who many years ago moved from Alaska into the adjacent parts of the Arctic coast of Canada and have been residing there ever since but who, because there were no immigration officers, were never landed and therefore have never properly become Canadian citizens. This sad state of affairs came to the notice of the department recently and we came to the conclusion that everyone in the house would feel that something ought to be done about it." (House of Commons Debates, 22nd Parliament, 3rd Session: Vol. 4, p. 3679 (May 8, 1956)).
Thus, the 1956 amendment wasn't closing a "legal loophole" and granting citizenship to all First Nations and Inuit who were born in Canada before January 1, 1947. The amendment only applied to a "very limited number" of individuals, in an unusual situation in the Far North, not to all First Nations and Inuit born in Canada before January 1, 1947. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the contemporary article on the 1946 Citizenship Act by George Tamaki, published 7 U of T Law Journal: "The Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946". Tamaki did his LL.M. at U of T on the law of nationality, under the supervision of Bora Laskin. He does not at any point in the article mention First Nations or Inuit individuals born before 1947 as being excluded from natural-born citizens by birth. He states (at p. 74): "Birth "in Canada" will confer Canadian citizenship.37 This provision would seem to be an attempt to apply the common-law rule of jus soli..." He then mentions two exception to that principle: children of foreign ambassadors who are born in Canada, and children of enemy soldiers in hostile occupation of any part of Canada. No suggestion at all that Inuit and First Nations individuals born before 1947 would be excluded from "natural-born citizen".Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reviewed Hansard for 1946, when the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946 was being debated by the Committee of the Whole. Paul Martin Sr was the Secretary of State for Canada, responsible for the bill. Here is the complete exchange about s. 4 of the bill, dealing with those born in Canada before the bill came into force (Hansard, 20th Parliament, 2nd Session, April 30, 1946, at p. 1053):
"On Section 4—Born before the commencement of the act.
"Mr. MacNICOL: What about Indians who have left their tribes and have established themselves like the rest of us, or Indians who have served in His Majesty's forces? Are they automatically Canadians by virtue of the fact that they were born here?
"Mr. MARTIN: They are Canadian citizens. If an Indian was born in Canada he is a Canadian citizen. The section is clear.
"Mr. COLDWELL: What about the Six Nations Indians around Brantford? Are they regarded as Canadians? I believe they have some international status which enables them to cross the boundary with their own passports.
"Mr. MARTIN: If they were born in Canada, then under the act they are Canadian citizens. There are two principles by which most countries determine citizenship, law of blood and law of the place of birth. We have a combination of both principles.
"Section agreed to.
I've added the bolding to emphasise the Secretary of State's answer to the questions about First Nations individuals: If they were born in Canada before the Act came into force, they are Canadian citizens, just like anyone else under the law of birth.
In light of these comments from the Secretary of State, which the House accepted without any debate, it seems to me to be clear that First Nations and Inuit born before 1947 are Canadian citizens, and the portion of the article under discussion (as well as the similar one in the article on the 1946 Act) should be removed. Does anyone have any objections or comments? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's been two months and no-one has commented on the information provided above, nor provided any counter-cites from reliable sources, so I'm going to be BOLD and delete the section in question from the article. I'm also going to make a corresponding deletion on the article on the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_nationality_law&oldid=1233766314"