The Harper government is being criticized for its plans to revisit the 30-year-old rules permitting dual Canadian citizenship and opening up a divisive debate on the notion of “citizenship of convenience” and the meaning of Canadian nationhood. It comes on the heels of the recent conflict in Lebanon when the Canadian government completed an unprecedented mass evacuation of some 10,000 so-called “nominal” Canadian civilians caught in the crossfire between Hezbollah and Israel. It is reported that a majority of these evacuees, some who have not paid taxes or resided in Canada for many years, have since returned to Lebanon and in the process, saddled Canadians with a bill of $85 Million.
Government policymakers are encouraged to tread carefully. Reforming Canada’s citizenship laws, which are arguably long overdue, has been the subject of numerous failed attempts by previous governments to secure Senate approval for other less controversial amendments. New initiatives to review the dual nationality issue will surely risk alienating many amongst Canada’s first- and second-generation immigrant communities which now account for approximately 20% of our population. And, it will more than likely provoke condemnation from those among us who passionately believe that dual citizenship is an important concept consistent with Canada’s reputation of being a “progressive country”.
Since the mid 1990s, immigration has been rising in Canada and in most other OECD countries, in part to combat a number of demographic developments, including an aging population, a growing elderly dependency ratio, a shrinking labor force and a problem of brain drain. Canada administers its immigration policies through programs that comprise of several stages or “gates of entry”. An individual wishing to become a “Canadian” must first pass through the gate of immigration approval, to achieve the right of residence and settlement, before reaching the final gate for full citizenship.
The Canadian Immigration Plan, which received a significant legislative overhaul in 2002, not only committed itself to increased liberal residency rules that were more compatible with Canadian citizenship policies, but also formulated an Immigration Plan that was consistent with empirical evidence acknowledging the onward migration patterns of newcomers to Canada. Evidence confirms that since 1980, a large fraction of the working-age economic class immigrants to Canada, is highly mobile and maintains strong personal ties to more than one country. A growing number of international citizenry will likely spend a fair amount of time at “home” as they do “abroad”.
Conservative groups have taken an overly harsh and confused view of citizenship -a use it or lose it approach to nationhood and that pledging or maintaining allegiance to another country should result in the rejection or renunciation of Canada’s citizenship. Unfortunately, this view overlooks the reality that migration is no longer a one-time life event. This view also overlooks the fact that dual citizenship is an important accessory to maintaining Canada’s competitiveness in a global work place. Immigrants are increasingly fueling the Canadian economy with “innovation, ideas, skills and talent” and account for more than 70 percent of all labor force growth.
True, the notion of citizenship is complex as can be evidenced by the variances in citizenship laws throughout the world. But globalization and the increased mobility of people across borders have persuaded governments, particularly in countries with high emigration and immigration rates, to recognize the practicality of permitting dual citizenship. The Canadian Immigration Plan has a huge operating cost in the area of $500 Million and, in retrospect, the $85 Million, although an unprecedented expense of its kind, was a small price to pay in order to maintain Canada’s global edge and promise to protect its citizens in time of need.
The assumption that some might be classified as ‘more Canadian than others’ because of where they were born or where they now live is, as Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj stated, “an incredibly slippery slope to step onto". A discussion that begins with what it means to be a Canadian, rather than what it means to be a Canadian citizen, not only dangerously blurs the line between the definition of a citizen and a national, but lures the audience into an unwarranted and potentially divisive debate.
Moreover, it would be absurd to think that one of the front runners for the Liberal leadership, Michael Ignatieff, could be deemed ‘less Canadian’ due to the time he spent living abroad. Canada has entered into a new era where many of its brightest and more talented citizens, by birth or through naturalisation, are also looking abroad for economic opportunities that Canada may not provide. But as evidenced by Mr Ignatieff’s example, some Canadians will ultimately return ‘home’ and contribute to the success of this country. Indeed, this is consistent with the conclusions of a recent survey report conducted by the Economist:”Some of the best prospects in the competition for talent are émigrés – people who have gone abroad to make their fortune but still feel the tug of their home country”.
By revoking the long standing dual citizenship policy and requiring citizens who may have a better opportunity abroad to elect whether they wish to maintain their Canadian citizenship, under revised criteria, would be detrimental to Canada’s future. Not only would a revised plan dissuade potential immigrants from establishing themselves in Canada, but it also runs the risk of pushing our own “home-grown” talent away. To coin the phrase from the early 1920’s by a former president of the United States, “we are all citizens of the world and the tragedy of our times is that we do not know this”.
