Skip to Content

Jason Kenney tells war veteran daughter: soldiers were "heroes," but not Canadian citizens

Read More:
Jason Kenney, Jackie Scott, Lost Canadians, Citizenship and immigration Canada
Photo by David P. Ball

Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney told Jackie Scott, the daughter of a Canadian war veteran, that her father – and others serving the country – technically weren't Canadian at the time they were fighting for their country. 

"(Soldiers) are heroes, but at the time, they're British subjects," Kenney said firmly, before explaining that there was no such thing as a Canadian citizen prior to 1947. He told Scott that her Ontario-born father was "clearly not, obviously not" a citizen during World War II. 

"There was no citizenship before 1947," he reiterated, before breaking off the conversation. 

Scott is one of the  "Lost Canadians" – a group of legitimate Canadians who have a Canadian parent and have spent most of their lives in Canada, only to be denied or excluded from citizenship due to legal loopholes. Scott was told by Citizenship and Immigration Canada this year that she did not qualify for Canadian citizenship because her Canadian war veteran father was a "British subject" at the time of her birth, and not a Canadian citizen. In her previous applications, she was rejected due to the fact that she was born out of wedlock in the UK, even though her parents married shortly after her birth and "legitimized" her upon coming to Canada.

"You've forced me to go to court over this issue," Scott told Kenney, referring to the lawsuit filed earlier this year against the Canadian government. 

"I'm sorry," Kenney responded, explaining that her situation was caused by old laws of the time and not by any deliberate intent on the government's part.

Scott, along with others, have been urging government to correct those 'old laws' for years. Even though Kenney appeared not to have recognized her, Scott believes her name (and back story) may be familiar to him from articles written about her in media.

"I introduced myself as Jacqueline, and he called me Jackie," she observed after the exchange. 

She believes that despite Kenney's claims to the contrary, Canadian citizenship did exist prior to 1947, and has many documents -- including materials handed to her father prior to battle and entries in the Encyclopedia of Canada (1940 ed.) -- clearly defining Canadian citizenship.

Lost Canadian confrontation with Kenney

Scott was emotional as she confronted the Minister at his table at a speaking event about immigration in Surrey last week. She had spent most of the past decade agonizing over her citizenship, and here was the head of the ministry that kept rejecting her appeals, sitting at the table beside hers. 

The Minister came to speak to audiences about fast-tracking immigration for young people who had studied and worked in Canada for two years or more. Scott, meanwhile, had lived in Canada for over 50 years and has Canadian children. She is the only one in her family who remains a non-citizen of the country, making each Canada Day a bittersweet occasion. 

"I thought that if Jason Kenney could put a face to the issue (of Lost Canadians), it would make it easier for him to understand," Scott said, explaining her reason for coming to the event.

Kenney said that he would try to "close the loophole" for Lost Canadians like Scott in the fall, but did not elaborate on whether that would mean acceptance or continued exclusion.

Why is it that new Canadians who immigrate and work for a few years in the country are more eligible to citizenship than the Lost Canadians? The Citizenship and Immigration office in Ottawa responded that people like Scott were welcome to make their case if they have experienced "undue hardship" or made an "exceptional contribution" to Canada. So far, despite her father's service to the country and her many years living in Canada, Scott's applications for citizenship have been denied four times.

The office also mentioned Bill C-37, which "resolved many of the inequalities that existed in past legislation, including cases where a person was born in wedlock to a non-Canadian father and Canadian mother outside Canada in the first generation between 1947 and 1977, and a person born out of wedlock in the first generation to a Canadian father and non Canadian mother."

It did not explain why the government chose 1947 as the cutoff date for giving citizenship, nor why individuals like Scott remained excluded to this day. According to Lost Canadians advocate Don Chapman, the government's solution was incomplete due to the fact that it inexplicably shut out around 5 per cent of Lost Canadian cases and created a whole new class of stateless children born abroad. 

"My only question is: are they going to resolve this issue before I'm dead?" Scott asked anxiously. Some elderly Lost Canadians, including World War II veteran Guy Vallière, have already passed away without fulfilling their dream for citizenship.

Scott wonders today if she will be able to escape the same fate, and whether she will one day be able to celebrate Canada Day as a citizen, along with the rest of her Canadian family. 

(9) Comments

Jeff July 4th 2012 | 7:07 AM

But they bend over backwards to allow scum like Conrad Black back in the country.  Shows you where the Conservative's priorities are.  I hope people are paying attention.

 

The Minister is simply repeating -- presumably on the advice of his officials -- the received dogma that Canadian citizenship was created ex nihilo on Jan. 1, 1947. In fact, the term 'Canadian citizen' has existed in Canadian law since 1910.

In a book issued to Canadian soldiers during the Second World War, they were informed that they would be fighting as 'Canadian citizens'. So if in 1943 Jackie Scott's father was told he was a Canadian citizen, why is Jackie now being told she isn't?

The Minister now has a political decision to make: rectify the status of the remaining Lost Canadians by legislative or administrative action, or fight them in court. If he chooses the latter, he must explain what the government is defending, what policy objective is served, by continuing to exclude people from citizenship solely because they were born out of wedlock over 65 years ago or because their claim to citizenship is through the female line. Whatever the legal outcome, he cannot win politically by forcing people into court to prove the're Canadian.

As for Conrad Black, the Minister has already been warned that if Lord Black's citizenship is restored while Jackie and the other Lost Canadians remain excluded, the government will have some explaining to do.

Lynne Melcombe July 5th 2012 | 3:15 PM

First, Spell Check, trying to humiliate someone publicly for their language or spelling is rude. There are all kinds of reasons a person might misspell. If Maggie were writing in a professional capacity, your comment might be reasonable. But no one who simply comments on an article should have to put up with such scrutiny, never mind someone who lacks the basic courtesy to use a real name on such a criticism. I am a professional writer and editor and I find this rude and arrogant. Shame on you.

Second, I simply don't understand the logic behind the argument that there was no Canadian citizenship before 1947. If that's the case, neither of my parents, who were both born in Canada, were Canadian citizens. Yet they enjoyed full rights and status as Canadian citizens. How is it that anyone who was born before 1947 was accorded any rights as Canadians, if this were the case. Clearly, I'm missing something and I'd be grateful to anyone who would explain this to me.

Todd Wong July 6th 2012 | 12:00 AM

If the Brian Mulroney's Conservatives could give Redress for Japanese-Canadians interned during WW2, in 1988 - 46 years after forcing them from their homes and selling off their property...

If the Harper Conservatives could give Redress for Chinese-Canadians who paid the racist head tax from 1885-1923, and created the Chinese "Exclusion" Act from 1923 to 1947, - in 2006 - 39 years after repealing the racist Chinese "Exclusion" Act.

then surely in 2012, - 67 years after WW2, that Jason Kenney and the Harper Conservatives can create a redress to grant citizenship on the "Lost Canadians" and create a warm fuzzy feeling in the hearts of all Canadians...

 

 

I Harris July 6th 2012 | 12:12 PM

If the situation of the Lost Canadians was caused by old laws of the time, why did the Canadian Government not correct them under Bill C-37.  Why can they not correct them NOW! They cannot claim that they did not know about them.  If Kenney was truly sorry, he would fix them. 

Why does he want to discriminate against them?  Why is he discriminating against Canadian Women by not giving them the same rights as Canadian Men?

Not only is he Not Sorry, but he is also guilty of discrimination which should offend all Canadians.

 

 

juechi July 7th 2012 | 7:07 AM

Hi Lynne, 

Thanks for inquiring. Yes, it's a really confusing issue but here's the response/explanation from the CIC: 

"... the first Canadian Citizenship Act came into force on January 1, 1947, marking the beginning of Canadian citizenship as a legal status. Prior to 1947 people born or naturalized in Canada were considered to be British subjects.  On January 1, 1947, in general, those who were born or naturalized in Canada before that date became Canadian Citizens."

This worked out for the vast majority of Canadians, but take a woman like Jackie Scott. She was born in 1945, back when her father was supposedly a British subject (even though he was given materials from the Canadian government talking about how he's a citizen fighting for the country). To compound matters, she was born out of wedlock even though her father and British war bride mother married shortly afterward and raised her as would any other family. 

So what Kenney's saying is that everyone in Canada was a British subject at the time and then became Canadian after 1947 "in general". Scott, being born abroad and out of wedlock, didn't qualify for this "in general" part. Although she has appealed her case numerous times, the government has so far yet to give her citizenship. 

In addition to that, there were other strange loopholes, such as being stripped of citizenship if you were a born-abroad Canadian who wasn't in Canada on your 24th birthday, although that issue has been fixed for most Canadians. 

For more, please see: http://blog.lostcanadian.com/2010/01/12-ways-to-lose-your-citizenship.html





Maryg July 8th 2012 | 1:01 AM

Who does Kenney think they were fighting for.  They were fighting for their country - Canada.  If the UK had been over run by the then enemy, Canada would have been next in line.  Perhaps Kenney should remember that he lives in a free and safe country which was fought for by these brave and gallant men and women of the 1st and 2nd world wars.  Shame he isn't much of a patriot!

 

Confused July 8th 2012 | 5:05 AM

A 'tourist baby' born in Canada whose parents have absolutely no connection with Canada, or an illegal boat person, can get citizenship.  But if you are a child born out overseas, out of wedlock, pre 1947 from a Canadian parent you are excluded.  Equally if you were born overseas pre 1947 with a Canadian mother who comes from generations of Canadians, you are not entitled either.  How can Jason Kenney not see the total absurdity and discrimination of these situations.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!....This is blasphemous....someone needs to remind Kenney that HE wouldn't be CANADIAN either if it hadn't been for CANADIAN SOLDIERS fighting to save his and our COUNTRY, OUR BELIEFS, OUR HERITAGE...and ANY Politician who has the nerve to make such a STATEMENT should be escorted from CANADIAN borders and STRIPPED of his/her CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP!!!!...I can clearly see that this FOOL has NEVER ONCE CONSIDERED the INDIVIDUALS who STOOD UP in the FACES of the ENEMY so that HE may ENJOY the LIFE that HE DENIES GOOD TRUE CANADIANS....JACKIE SCOTT you are CANADIAN in the EYES of TRUE CANADIANS who STILL REMEMBER WHAT this COUNTRY STANDS FOR!!!!