Birthright citizenship should be barred to anyone who doesn't have a parent who is a Canadian citizen or is a permanent resident, Tory delegates said in a vote Saturday at their party's policy convention.
Currently, anyone who is born on Canadian soil receives Canadian citizenship, something that has spurred concerns about
so-called "birth tourism."
The posturing by certain elements within the Conservative Party, which won this party policy vote by a narrow margin, probably does NOT deserve much if any attention. Even Stephen Harper was not prepared nor in a position to actually table let alone adopt this sort of legislation (despite rumbling among the usual suspects in the party). Sure, the world is changing, current events to our south echo and amplify xenophobic attitudes many of us hoped were mere remnants of history, and ripples of influence are spilling across our border, so it is not as if this is for sure limited to base-building. But it is not likely to become proposed law (other than by a Private Members Bill), not even if the Conservatives win a substantial majority in the next election (please, please let's not allow that to happen).
But as for
jus soli, there is not much of a real debate. Canadian citizenship derives from
statute not as a matter of right. There is NO
jus soli in its pure sense. Sure, there appear to be numerous commentators (including contributors to Wikipedia) who refer to the statutory grant of citizenship to those born in Canada as
jus soli, but it is NOT really a
right-of-the-soil since it is status conferred by statute not as a matter of right due those born on Canadian soil.
Indeed, this part of what is now, narrowly, Conservative policy, would be of no significance at all if Canada did recognize
jus soli, for if citizenship is a right deriving from birth on the soil, Parliament would have NO legal authority to take that away. But it does. And historically it has.
While there were more than a few arguable grounds for disputing certain elements in the Rennie decision (see
http://canlii.ca/t/gg59f) which rejected any current
jus soli right to citizenship in Canada, which could have been but were not addressed in the appellate process (because the subject matter of the litigation was rendered moot when the Liberal government repealed the challenged statutory provisions), that part of his decision, that Canadian citizenship derives from statute, and that there is no
jus soli right to citizenship, that part is almost certainly correct . . . in result even if not in its reasoning. (Some will still argue citizenship is
jus soli in Canada; Galati probably, still, for example, and Lorne Waldman quite likely, but that is more rooted in activist posturing than genuine jurisprudence.)
In fact, currently NOT all persons born on Canadian soil receive Canadian citizenship. In particular, if a person present in Canada on a diplomatic passport or otherwise in such capacity (including employees, including consular domestic employees for example) gives birth to a child in Canada, that child does NOT receive Canadian citizenship (unless one of the parents is a Canadian citizen or Permanent Resident). See Section 3(2) Citizenship Act at
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-1.html#h-3
Currently the primary
STATUTORY provision granting the status of Canadian citizenship to those born in Canada, subsection 3(1)(a) Citizenship Act, does confer (again,
statutorily, not as a matter of right) citizenship to those who are born in Canada, but again this is subject to some exceptions (such as I referenced per Section 3(2) in the Act) and only uniformly applies to those born in Canada after February 14, 1977.
Historically, and especially prior to some major changes to the law governing citizenship in Canada, Canadian statutes have otherwise imposed various limitations on who was a Canadian citizen even if born in Canada. Thus there are complex inter-connected statutory provisions governing the citizenship of those who were born IN Canada prior to February 15, 1977 (including various provisions which have been adopted over the years intending to, in effect, largely restore citizenship to some who were NOT citizens, even though born in Canada, under prior law).
Beyond that, entitlement to citizenship status in Canada can be an incredibly complex subject with a monstrous constitutional law aspect, such as when or to what extent might Charter or Fundamental Rights in effect mandate recognition of an individual's status as a citizen regardless the statutory provisions conferring or denying citizenship status (something then Federal Court Justice Rennie, who now sits on the Federal Court of Appeals, appears to have rejected, but this is the part of his decision which many have countered in cogent, and to my view persuasive arguments).
There is much to worry about in what the current core of the Conservative Party advocates, but further tampering with who is conferred citizenship by birth is probably no where near being any practical part of an agenda they might pursue any time soon, again even if they wrangle a majority government out of next year's election (which could lead me to lose all hope if that happens).
