REDRESS ISSUEMy days spent in a state run foster home in Massachusetts wasn't much different than what any expelled Japanese child and their descendant went through as a result of Canada's failure to protect it's children and their rights to nationality and citizenship! Lost Canadian Children should be entitled to no more or no less than what the Japanese received in their redress package. That authorized a special grant of citizenship to persons of Japanese ancestry, still alive, who were expelled from Canada and had their citizenship revoked in the period from 1941 to 1949. ALL descendants of such persons are eligible for citizenship, as long as they were living on September 22, 1988, regardless of whether the person who actually suffered is still alive.
RIGHTS OF THE CHILD & THE UNITED NATIONSPrime Minister Paul Martin said in a speech in Windsor, Ontario - May 7, 2000; "Canada's success as a society has depended to a large extent on its success as a political experiment. Our political system has helped to nurture civility, compassion, prudence and a sense of fairness - the qualities that most clearly define us as a people. The solution to the challenges we face in the modern world must be to strengten that system of democracy, not weaken it."
I'm placing faith in Mr. Martin's sense of fairness and compassion to strengten not weaken democracy in Canada. Only then can Canada prove to the world it can right its wrongs at home before ever being able to truly be considered the leading representative of Rights for Children in the rest of the world! That's my hope, notwithstanding the United Nations excuse for not enforcing it's Declarations against Canada for stripping children of nationality, saying it can only strive by teaching and education to promote respect for rights and freedoms and to secure universal and effective recognition and observance. Sec. 15.1 states, "Everyone has the right to a nationality"; See Section 7- United Nations-Declaration of Human Rights Sec 15.2, "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality".
To have lost my rights in the future to Canadian citizenship as a minor without due process, shows total disregard by Canada and world authorities to my future rights and best interests, especially that of being able to reunite with family and loved ones in my country of origin.
Canada Laws claim a constant live pattern on protections for children and childhood, and in particular consideration of their interests, needs, and rights in spite of differences in treatment of minors yet it's said the "Rights of the Child" between 1950 and 1959 were largely ignored. The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959), in its preamble, states that the child "needs special safeguards and care." Another indicator of the importance of considering interests of children when making a compassionate and humanitarian decision is the ratification by Canada of the Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 8, and the recognition of the importance of children's rights and the best interests of children in other international instruments ratified by Canada. The values and principles of the Convention recognize the importance of being attentive to the rights and best interests of children when decisions are made that relate to and affect their future and with special respect for the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality."
Benner v. Canada
In 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada settled a question of discrimination wherein, children born abroad of women before 1977 who were Canadian citizens would not have qualified for citizenship; under the current Act, such children are required by the Act to make an application for citizenship and undergo a criminal and security check. In contrast, children born abroad before 1977 to a Canadian father need only register their births. In early 1997, the Supreme Court held this provision to be discriminatory and in violation of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. See Benner v. Canada, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358. It was a time married women and "minors" were amongst those not eligible for certain rights and responsibilities. Benner's Canadian citizenship was granted though he was born "abroad" in the U.S. to a Canadian mother, without the more onerous requirements of the point system. Benner challenged the courts on sexual-discrimination and won, removing the different treatment regarding citizenship rights allotted children born to Canadian mothers versus Canadian fathers. Granted neither Benner or myself had a choice of where we were born, it would appear to be a natural advantage, not a disadvantage to have been born in Canada, but why does Canada treat us differently when it comes to resumption of citizenship?
The Court said "where access to a benefit such as citizenship is restricted on the basis of something so intimately connected to and so completely beyond the control of an applicant such as gender of his or her Canadian parent,"... " that applicant may invoke the protection of s.15." of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Summarily, in dealing with loss of the benefit of citizenship were based on age instead of gender and so completely beyond the control of the minor, we should also be able to invoke these "Equality Rights" in the Charter. There's never been a discrimination case based on age surrounding a citizenship issue but the courts have anticipated they may confront one sooner or later.
NATIONAL ORIGIN
It would be absurd if the process for resuming Canadian citizenship would be less stringent for a foreign born, than it would be for a natural-born, that in itself would present an unjustifiable inequality. I'm a naturalized U.S. citizen that is said to have lost Canadian citizenship as a minor, as opposed to Benner a natural-born U.S. citizen who as a minor never had Canadian citizenship, the manner of how we attained U.S. citizenship shouldn't differentiate us, and like Benner, I still had a parent who's a Canadian citizen and my birth was registered as required; on those two facts alone, there shouldn't be a problem in my automatically resuming Canadian citizenship immediately, as are others deemed born "abroad."It would invoke the protection of s. 15 of the Charter if we were dealing with discrimination based on national origin, et al, being treated differently because we were born in Canada, notwithstanding, if we were born in the States we'd be automatic Canadian citizens? That's what I've lived with; cousins and nephews born in the States easily achieving dual citizenship because their mothers, Canadian citizens living in the States ignored the law by never applying for U.S. Citizenship! My status from birth -- as a person born in Canada prior to the first Citizenship Act in 1946 of a Canadian mother and a Canadian father -- is no less a "status" than being of a particular skin color or ethnic or religious background: it is an ongoing state of affairs. Immutable characteristics arising at birth are generally more likely to be correctly classified as a "status" than are characteristics resulting from a choice to take some action. In applying s. 15 to questions of status, the critical time is not when the individual acquires the status in question but when that status is held against the person or disentitles the person to a benefit." Here, that moment was July 26, 1988 when the CIC considered and rejected my first application. Since this occurred well after s. 15 came into effect, Charter scrutiny involves neither retroactive nor retrospective application of the Charter.
Therefore, access to the valuable privilege of Canadian citizenship is restricted in different degrees depending on my national origin; national origin being one of the enumerated grounds in s. 15. Why do people in my condition, born in Canada, continue to be denied automatic right to citizenship, the same automatic right to citizenship that is granted freely to children born abroad of Canadian fathers and mothers?
Some are told they can resume citizenship if they meet the basic requirements of Subsection 11 (1) which includes lawful admission to Canada by qualifying through a point system for permanent residency. Since I'm not a business investor or silly enough to ask Canadian family members to guarantee my support for ten years, I'd not meet necessary points under a HC application. I've no qualms about medical or criminal checks, but unofficially I wouldn't qualify because of a disability and my age. I could see a person being asked to meet more onerous requirements of a point system if you're born in another country, but if you're born in Canada, no way, it's just principle! I'd not be a burden to Canadian taxpayers, I've worked all my life and contributed to Social Security since I was fifteen so my disability can remain in effect no matter where I reside. I'm a natural-born Canadian citizen and a naturalized American citizen, and I've never renounced my Canadian citizenship as an adult!
The pendulum has swung greatly in the other direction since the Citizenship Act in 1977; today, any person born to a Canadian parent in any other country, in the entire world, is automatically granted Canadian citizenship and benefits without having to qualify for the point system or ever having set foot on Canadian soil. Canada no longer requires new citizens to give up their other citizenships. The renunciatory language in the Canadian naturalization oath was ruled illegal by a Canadian court in 1973 on technical grounds and was subsequently removed -- and Canada has allowed dual citizenship without any restrictions at all since 1977. Before Sept. 11, 2001, it was even suggested the point system be removed for Afghanistan and Somalia citizens. For some years now, because of this lenient policy, the intelligence agency has warned that with the possible exception of the United States, there are more international terrorist organizations active in Canada than anywhere in the world!
Some admit there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the Citizenship Act but the following seems extraordinary. On the CIC website, under Chapter 14 - Appendix A - Acquisition of British subject status and Canadian citizenship, May 22, 1868 to present., the dateline charts under "minors" show detailed datelines, limits and responsibilities for parents and minors. It suggests I may still be a Canadian citizen and may never have stopped being one! If you were born prior to 1947 under British law, minors lost Canadian citizenship at the same time as the responsible parent became naturalized in another country. They were also in a war mode to keep their enemies from resettling after the war, but after 1947 "there's no loss of Canadian citizenship, only British!" That's not what CIC is telling me. If I lost my citizenship in 1955 as they claim, and the situation was crystallized in 1955; if that is when the status was held against me and disentitled me to the benefit of citizenship, I'd fit into the later category with "no loss of Canadian citizenship?" This would allot me the same treatment in citizenship matters as foreign born Canadians are entitled to, who have only to prove registration of their birth in order to resume Canadian citizenship.
Under Appendix B, "automatic loss of citizenship no longer exists!" Even the present Citizenship Act of 1977 C-29 (9)(1) continues with the theme of "no automatic loss of Canadian citizenship" and with protection for minors rights by stating that a citizen can on application only, renounce his citizenship (c) "as long as he was not a minor."
Summary
It would be sad example to the world if Lost Canadian Children had to petition Canadian courts on unfair and egregious minor child issues in order to enact amendments restoring citizenship for children who wouldn't have lost it under today's laws. It would be odd having to petition on discrimination based on being born in Canada while challenging automatic loss of citizenship and nationality as a child, though the courts have said those issues may have to be decided at some future date. They also agree it's a reasonable and anticipated request to know if one is right or wrong, but to arrogantly close my case without a fair open hearing leaves it still up in the air in my mind! Though Canada says it is a humanitarian and compassionate country based on natural justice that wants to reunite families, in many case, I feel they've missed the mark completely, and imagine all it's about is wanting to come Home!
Discussion Board
bobbynorthlake@gmail.com
