Conservatives to debate treason law res'n at June convention

[Edward Campbell]

Some countries would snag folks for military service even if they were considered citizens.  I know of some born-in-Canada citizens whose fathers were Italian citizenss who, years ago, were visited by military authorities when visiting the old country.
Hmmm, maybe the same case could be made about countries who don't allow reunciation of their citizenship. If someone "has to be" a citizen, they may have to have a passport from such a country.  Happy to hear more from those who may be in this situation.

Maybe they have to face one of two prospects:

1. Hold only a Canadian passport and visit only a handful of the world's 200 countries - those that would never send them to the other country that claims them; or

2. If they feel compelled to visit that other country, then to travel, everywhere and exclusively, on that country's passport - in other words never exercise one of the rights of Canadian citizenship.

 

[a_majoor]

Like many other real and proposed laws, this is actually a problem in search of a solution.

Handguns have been heavily restricted in Canada since the 1930's, yet we continue to have laws and regulations added against firearms owners and ownership. Has any of this made guns or gun crime less common? Extra laws and regulations give the appearance of "doing something", but in the case of guns the actual results are negative.

The real answer is to look at existing laws and actually apply them. There is already laws and sanctions against treason in both the Criminal Code and the QR&O's (although "Death, or lesser punishment" is no longer on the books), and I'm fairly sure that a close reading of the existing law would apply to the cases or situations in question.

 

[Redeye]

Remember that Parliament is in charge of human rights unless they choose to let the Supreme Court be in charge.  So far Parliament has decided it prefers the judgement of the Supreme Court to their own in all cases.

To make any changes, however, would essentially be a constitutional issue as it would involve Charter rights.

 

[Redeye]

No, certainly not.  I wouldn't strip anyone of their citizenship, were I King.  I would only make it a prerequisite for anyone who chooses to pursue Canadian Citizenship that they renounce their "other" citizenship, be it from the UK, the US, Kazakhstan, China or whereever.  The immigrant who wanted to become a Canadian citizen would make that choice.  The other option is to remain a "resident" or whatever.  My soon to be former Father in Law made that choice for himself when he moved to Canada in the 1970s.  To this day he is an American citizen, who happens to be a resident of Canada.

We had an interesting discussion about this a while back, as I recall (we meaning the various contributors to this fine forum), and the issue of dual citizenship came up at length.

There is no practical way to force someone to renounce a foreign citizenship, because our laws do not impact those of other countries in any way, shape, or form.  At birth, I was a citizen of Canada (by virtue of being born here), as well as the United Kingdom by virtue of my father being a British citizen.  I hold - and use - passports from both countries and I find it very unlikely that any law obliging me not to do so would hold up to a constitutional challenge.  Certainly, I could claim to have renounced my UK citizenship, but the UK Government would a) not be obliged to accept that renunciation and b) would likely restore my citizenship on request.  Numerous countries officially ban dual citizenship but in practice it simply doesn't work, nor is it really a problem in the case of the many, many people who hold it.  To Tony's point above, renunciations aren't even possible in many countries (incidentally, the USA is one of them - it's nearly impossible to get rid of US citizenship should you wish to do so).

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

To make any changes, however, would essentially be a constitutional issue as it would involve Charter rights.

Which Parliament can over-ride in any case it chooses to do so.  Quebec does it regularly to keep les anglais in line.

 

[Redeye]

Which Parliament can over-ride in any case it chooses to do so.  Quebec does it regularly to keep les anglais in line.

Such an override still requires constant renewal and is not immune to challenge.  The two clauses that allow that to happen are the two things that should be changed about the Charter, especially the Notwithstanding Clause which allows Quebec to get away with keeping discriminatory laws in place.