View My Guestbook
Sign My Guestbook
email@example.com E-Mail Prime Minister Harper
"Lost Canadian Children" are natural-born Canadians, their God-given birthright grants them inalienable rights to nationality without having to earn or otherwise qualify to be worthy of citizenship. Parliament finally agreed nationality can't be taken away by civil government, except by forfeiture, however nothing can erase the years of anquish for those of us whose nationality and citizenship were taken away virtually forever. If laws evolved to correct past injustices for children born abroad, Japanese immigrants, First Nations and Senators and House of Commons Members born outside Canada, why hadn't it evolved for us born in Canada?
Hello, Canada claimed I lost nationality and citizenship "automatically" as a child when my mother brought me to the States Canadian mother and granted custody rights in the States!
The 1947 Canada Citizenship Act actually gave married women full authority over their nationality status and clarified the issue of women's rights in that both men and women derived special and unique rights from the sacred bond of matrimony! Canadian citizenship could be acquired by non–Canadian women who married Canadian citizens and came to live in Canada! In 1919, after Election Act amendments by the Conservative Party, Agnes Macphail was elected to the House of Commons and was the first woman Member of Parliament in Canada. It was all well intentioned, yet they could never realize the sorrow and suffering inflicted on later generations of "Canadian Lost Children".
in 1770 as an indentured servant. The picture with my brother Ross, was taken the day I was brought to the States. Although only six, I remember as if it were yesterday, seeing the old bus coming over from the point throwing billows of red dust high in the air and rushing to say good bye to everyone, Ross, my aunts and uncles, my cats and horse Flicka, and my best buddy Rover, not knowing I'd never see him again. My memories of those days were of happy times filled with kindness, respect, and love. There were good neighbors and good family, my values were shaped in those few years, never ever to be forgotten!
Each year on Canada Day I watched celebrations and swearing in ceremonies of new citizens, feeling deep down inside something wasn't fair. After squabbling with CIC for years, in 2000 I was told literally to "FORGET FOREVER"about Canadian citizenship! I always asked myself why in God's name is Canada doing this? They should be embracing it's lost canadian children. There are plenty of people south of the border with canadian roots that would love to come home. Sadly though, the reason is it was all about GREED. CIC wasn't going to make any money on Lost Canadian Children, it was to easy, they wanted to appear as though they were caring about diversification and multiculturalism, they could make millions of dollars finding poor refugees or millionaires who were willing to pay upfront as new citizens, then use that money for their own agendas. Many average folks and business people were suckered into the CIC plan while lost canadian children were being refused. No other criminal charges have been filed that I know of except for the three MP's who also are victims of the CIC wrongdoing. It's time they scuttled the old plan, just hope something better, really means something better, not just repairing the queen's roof. Why don't they do what I said back in the eighties, bring all the families from the states who's families first settled onto canadian soil, raised their families, cleared the forests and tilled the land while worshipping God on their own terms and making it what it is today. Canadian would love to welcome their american cousins, although many will argue otherwise, but who's ancestors were fleeing from the English and the overbearing romanized church, yet we're stuck still not thinking like a soverign country. There is nothing wrong with a country taking in good people from around the world, but my God, you don't forsake your own!
When this story surfaced and I posted it in 2010, Islanders had always wondered why I had all that problem having to be recognized a Canadian, well in 2010 the truth finally surfaced, you see, for years Citizenship and Immigration was promoting to the provinces the idea that individuals could derive wealth from foreign immigrants without consequences, easily seen as the clear indication for the PNP Scandal on PEI!
For years the CIC PNP Nomination Program effectively kept Lost Canadian Children from becoming citizens, we were at the bottom of the CIC barrel while immigrants and refugees were being fast-tracked, albeit money and selfish greed mostly by Canadians! For the soul of Canada, FOREIGN INFLUENCE should be investigated until integrity is returned to citizenship issues, start by banning brokers, back rooms and hidden agendas!UPDATE!
Immigration Minister Chris Alexander reveals contradictions in citizenship law...Jenny Uechi Posted: Feb 20th, 2014 "Contradiction in Citizenship Law"Another hot topic was the end of the immigrant investor program, which offered visas to people with a net worth of at least $1.6 million who were willing to lend $800,000 to the Canadian government for investment across Canada for a term of five years. The change, which would leave 45,000 Chinese millionaires in limbo, was proposed in the new 2014 budget. The decision has angered some in the Chinese Canadian business community, with some people speaking out at a press conference in Chinatown. Asked by a reporter for comment about angry Chinese investors condemning the cancellation, Alexander responded: "The majority of people who have made their views known to us from the Chinese community and elsewhere have said 'Bravo, thank you for ending a program that was not meeting its objectives." When another reporter pressed him on whether the program was losing Canada money, he shook his head and said 'no.' "Has Canada lost money in this deal? No, I don't think so. In general, I think it yielded some results, but it wasn't as advantageous or as positive as some of our other economic programs, so that's why we're ending this program and replacing it with something better."
Allow me to tell you my story, my name is Robert Finbar Brown, everyone downhome called me Bobby. I was born at North Lake, Prince Edward Island in 1944, three years before Canada had a Citizenship Act!>
With strong SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIANroots, my ggg-grandfather Duncan MacLaren journeyed to P.E.I. from Scotland onboard the "FALMOUTH"
I remember fondly the old farm and helping my uncles pick potatoes, the beach at North Lake, walks to Fraser's store for penny candy, being a little little kid and being scared to deathe by bagpipers marching up Queen St, later playing around the old train station in Charlottetown with my cousins down on Water St. I'll always remember the unforgettable sounds of an era gone by, the old train turntable, the iceman, the ragman, smell of penny candy at the old 5 and 10, fish and chips, girlie shows at Old Home Week, and best of all rock and roll teen dances at Rollaway. I was here the day I turned sixteen, drove straight to East Point just to dig around in the old home's cellar! Each year I returned, eventually trying to start a small business but was unbelievably turned down for citizenship. We honeymooned on the Island and planned to raise our family here, hoping all the time government would simply change it's mind.
Relatives, MP's, Senators and House of Commons Members, even strangers, could never understand why I wasn't a Canadian citizen, even more so a dual citizen! I was a mere child, not having attained the age of majority to renounce or acquire a country's citizenship, nor given due process or choice of allegiance as accorded by the Canadian Citizenship Act! The 1977 Citizenship Act came along in an attempt to correct the law by making it impossible to loose nationality and citizenship. However, it was a failure and only continued to be unjustifiably unfair to those of us who lost it automatically prior to 1977 who had to still deal with the inequities, injustices and consequences of archaic laws."Parliament had to pass a bill that would REDRESSthe years of unfairness and heartaches for all children born in Canada who lost Nationality and Citizenship, unjustifiably and automatically. It should be made right, once and for all, anything but "Automatic Resumption" for Lost Canadian Children and their Descendants would only continue to divide and torment those families for years to come!"
I was made a naturalized U.S. citizen on January 26, 1955 as a child ten years of age when I was told to raise my hand and pledge an OATH to be a citizen of the United States! That innocent act as a minor, could not change my BIRTHRIGHT, my heritage or feeling in my heart that Canada was my true home, the States only my temporary home.
Early trips to the States weren't easy; my mother sought work as a domestic; we moved from one job to another, one room at a time, many nights we went to bed hungry. One employer, refusing to have worker's children in their home, meant my being placed in a Massachusetts foster home, where I remember long rows of beds and cruel treatment dealt to the children for merely crying.
WHEN ARE YOU COMING HOME BOBBY
That's what my relatives always asked, if they were still here they'd be happy for me regaining citizenship! Unfortunately their words turned to sadness and desperation as the years rolled by, especially after realizing what both countries had done. I presumed being born in Canada made me an automatic dual citizen, when crossing the border, I always took pride showing my birth certificate to prove I was Canadian! In 1987 I finally made plans to move my family to PEI with an idea to start a small business. I applied to the CIC but was devastated to be denied citizenship resumption. I re-applied in 1995 and 2001 and in February, 2002. Finally, CIC closed my application without any possible consideration or referral to a citizenship judge.
In early 2000, at the Los Angeles CIC, a very unsympathetic young Asian Immigration officer, a dual citizen, told my daughter and I to "FORGET FOREVER" about trying to regain our Canadian citizenship! It was definitely time to journey North to settle it once and for all, or forever hold my peace! I waited another eight months for a reply from CIC, meanwhile I met with John McLaughlin and Gayle Goodman at M.P. Dr. James Lunney's office on Vancouver Island. They worked exhaustively to negotiate with Sydney CIC, but Mr. McDonald wouldn't budge. I managed to do research and talk around but there were days I felt alone and helpless living in my car. My only consolation was when John and Gayle told me my website was the first story to put flesh and bones on the citizenship issue while the source of the earliest controversy and consensus amongst their peers in Parliament!
Vancouver Island - April 19, 2002
"The News"- Parksville, B.C. www.pqbnews.com
After Vancouver Island, I was home to Prince Edward Island and spoke with Lawrence A. Macaulay, P.C., M.P. and the Guardian paper. Unfortunately, although I'm a Island boy, neither would make a mention of or print my story!
I always respectfully disagreed with the CIC. Their decisions were solely based on Subsection 20 (1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1952 which reads;
"when the responsible parent of a minor child ceases to be a Canadian citizen, the minor child would cease if he acquired the nationality of his responsible parent simultaneously; the inclusion of the minor child in the mother's U.S. naturalization resulted in automatic loss of the minor child's Canadian citizenship effective January 26, 1955."
Certainly an adult is held accountable if they renounce citizenship but our society and laws say a child is never held accountable for acts of a parent, the link between child and parent is a particularly unique and intimate nature wherein the child has no choice who their parents are or where, when and if they choose to divorce or immigrate, therefore Canada and CIC is holding me to a doctrine of "discrimination by association".
Statement in Senate on Lost Canadian Children - Sen. Noel Kinsella Feb. 19, 2004
FOREIGN DIVORCES & CHILD CUSTODY
In my case Canada should have questioned the validity of the foreign child custody decision made in Massachusetts in 1953. That was about responsible parent and competent court jurisdiction status. The chance of the foreign custody decision being invalid in this case is reasonable to consider, for each country has it's own constitution and jurisdictional laws that provide protection or punishment; respective of which country your a citizen. Ultimately, the CIC decision is incorrect, it is based on flawed information gathered and relied upon by the United States Immigration and Naturalization (INS) with regards to a custody decision which should never have been adjudged by a Massachusetts court, according to it's own rules and standards. M.G.L. Section 208 says that even if residency and cause occurring without Mass were met, (Exceptions rule Section 5), it does not usurp other parts of the rule.
First, parties had to have first lived together as husband and wife in Mass, which clearly never happened (Domicile rule Section 4). Secondly, actions for divorce shall be filed, heard and determined in the probate court, held for the county where one of the parties lives, except that if either party still resides in the county where the parties last lived together (as my father did) the action shall be heard and determined in a court for that county. Since this was not the case, the Mass custody should have been adjudged of no force or effect in Canada as it should have been in Mass (Venue rule Section 6). Massachusetts would not honor a divorce for it's inhabitants for a cause occurring there, who go into another jurisdiction, it would also contradict Mass law if it's court effected a divorce for parties who resided in and the cause occurred in another county. (Foreign divorces Section 39). Therefore, it can be confidently concluded a judgment effected for citizens of an entirely different country should be of no force or effect in Massachusetts.
"When you're in a country that does not recognize you as a citizen, it's laws do not take priority over laws of the country of which you are a citizen. Although my mother's intentions were honorable, she was still a Canadian citizen when granted custody in 1953; she did not become a U.S. citizen until 1955 when the INS accepted the flawed child custody decision. If you play it backwards; with the Massachusetts custody decree of no force and effect; the INS naturalization proceedings would be null and void and subsequent CIC decisions wrong; and we know two wrongs don't make a right! Canada knew I was right but refused to accept me."
ILLEGALITY OF A MINOR TO RENOUNCE OR ACQUIRE!
Canadian Law contradicts itself on "AUTOMATIC" Loss of Citizenship for a natural-born!In 1955 Part 111. Subsection 16 (1) of the 1952 Citizenship Act elaborated on how natural-born Canadian citizens like myself can renounce Canadian citizenship;"Where a natural-born Canadian citizen, at his birth or during his minority, or any Canadian citizen on marriage, became or becomes under the law of any other country a national or citizen of that country, if, after attaining the full age of twenty-one years, or after the marriage, he makes, while not under disability (minor), and still such a national or citizen, a declaration renouncing his Canadian citizenship, he shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen."
Canadian Law contradicts itself on "RESUMPTION" of Citizenship for a natural-born!In addition, the construction of Subsection 20 (3) gave discretion to the Minister to resume the citizenship of a person, who as a minor child ceased to be a Canadian citizen with"Where the Minister, in his discretion, permits a person, who as a minor child ceased to be a Canadian citizen, to make a declaration in accordance with the regulations, that he wishes to resume Canadian citizenship and the said person makes the declaration within one year after attaining the age of twenty-one years or within such longer period as the Minister may allow in special circumstance, such person, upon acceptance of his declaration by the Minister, again becomes a Canadian citizen. 1950, c. 29, s. 8.
These old sections emphatically emphasized that a person cannot renounce if they are under disability as a "minor". Lawmakers had always been in unison on this point, for sure they never had the intention interpreted by the CIC of "Subsection 20 (1)" allowing for automatic loss of citizenship for a minor!
Prior to January 1, 1947, there was no citizenship statute in existence. Canada was in a curious position of being a nation without citizens. This was corrected on January 1, 1947 with the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c.15 (the "Former Act"). The Former Act recognized Canadian citizenship for the first time. The current Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29 (the "Current Act") replaced the Former Act on February 15, 1977. It contains various provisions designed to preserve the citizenship rights of citizens under the Former Act. It also recognizes limited citizenship rights for persons born in Canada before the Former Act came into effect.The Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947 was enacted by Parliament to respond to World War II issues.German-born immigrants had returned to Germany to fight for Hitler against Canada and the allies. After the war, they could reclaim Canadian citizenship and residency, seeking asylum. A Canadian law declaring that these men had lost their Canadian naturalization would be of no effect if their Canadian-born children sponsored them right back into Canada therefore the "War Measures Act" was utilized to revoke the citizenship of Japanese and German children, regardless of their Canadian birth! There was little concern then over discrimination or statelessness for the law and custom of many European and Asian nations presumed citizenship to pass to all children, no matter where they were born, via the rights of the father.
"Canada and the Early Cold war 1943-1957"
There were serious concerns of espionage involving Japanese nationals and their children whom the government sought to "repatriate" and,
"JAPANESE IMMIGRATION - RETURN OF FORMER RESIDENTS OF CANADA AND SPECIAL CASES"
The downside of the Act created "Lost Canadian Children" who suffered automatic loss of nationality for no other reason than that Canada was still in a war mode with Japan and Germany! Constitutional lawyers should have recognized the problem years ago, we should never have been lumped into the same group; to be let to suffer the consequence of a war act made only to discourage a former enemy from resettling in Canada!
My 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 money and 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.Past Progress on S-2
Anyone with CANADIAN parents or grandparents LIVING OR DEAD, should be automatically granted citizenship. Lost Canadian Children lost more than money because of the mistakes of the Canadian government. We never asked for money, the least Canada can do is allow my grandchildren to return if my children for some reason cannot.
Here are a few quotes from Japanese who had to deal with issues of civil rights, sale of property without consent, and damages incurred from loss earnings, disruption to education, and psychological trauma, which culminated in the redress of millions of dollars,Kitagawa, Muriel. Letter to the Custodian of Enemy Property, 1943;
"You, who deal in lifeless figures, files, and statistics could never measure the depth of hurt and outrage dealt out to those of us who love this land. It is because we are Canadians, that we protest the violation of our birthright."Kogawa, Joy. Naomi's Road, 1986;
"Every morning I wake up in a narrow bunk bed by the stove. I wish and wish we could go home. I don't want to be in this house of the bears with newspaper walls. I want to be with Mommy and Daddy and my doll in our real house. I want to be in my own room where the picture bird sings above my head….But no matter how hard I wish, we don't go home."
RIGHTS OF THE CHILD & THE UNITED NATIONSPast Debates on Senate Bill S-2
Prime Minister Paul Martin said in a speech in Windsor, Ontario - May 7, 2000;SEEKING TERROR ON OUR SHORES!"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,  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.
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?
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., (updated and deleted) 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 was 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."
It would be a sad day if any Lost Canadian Children had to petition courts on unfair and egregious minor child issues simply to enact amendments restoring citizenship to those who wouldn't have lost it under today's laws.
It would be unimaginable, an Islander, having to petition courts on discrimination on being born in Canada, challenging automatic loss of citizenship and nationality as a child, albeit courts have said those issues have to be decided at some future date.
Courts agreed it's a reasonable and anticipated request to know if one is right or wrong, to have arrogantly closed my case without a fair and open hearing left it still up in the air in my mind!
Canada claims it's a humanitarian and compassionate country based on natural justice that wants to reunite families, in many cases that's not true, they miss the mark completely and all it's about is wanting to come Home! This goes a lot deeper than any bias and prejudicial government entity like the CIC being allowed to get involved in a Charter issue, number one, they should challenged on their standing. Let the court be fair and reasonable to choose the comparable issue and if need be, substitute the english monarchy as respondent since they're the ones who really stand to gain or lose in this axe war, make it real interesting!
Judy Sgro: Without Honour or Dignity
On to the.... "House of Commons"
Royal Assent on S-2 "Canada's Newest Best Kept Secret"
Other's stories and related information:
Don Chapman's Story:
Magali Castro-Gyr's Story:
"UPDATING CANADA’S CITIZENSHIP LAWS: IT’S TIME Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration Hon. Andrew Teledgi, P.C., M.P. Chair October 2005"
Links"HEAR HIS WORDS"......Watching the Supreme Court discussing the "Ten Commandment" controversy, it reminded me of Red Skelton's story to the children about the Pledge of Allegiance and it's "Under God" phrase. Red was one of the greatest comedians ever, he was funny not smutty and both adults and children enjoyed his show. Hear his compassionate and profound statements on his 50's television show right here! "RealAudio" is required.Parlimentary Internet:
Committee on the Rights of the Child - June 20, 1995
Canadians officially become Canadian citizens! Will History Repeat Itself?
Resumption for people who lost their citizenship as minors - (CIC Canada | News Release 2003-18) Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announces that persons who lost their Canadian citizens as minors because their parents naturalized elsewhere between 1947-77 will be allowed to become Canadian permanent residents (and, later, citizens) without having to satisfy the normal selection criteria. (May 14, 2003)
Citizenship Policy Manual- This is a manual for use of CIC staff. Contains interpretation of Canadian citizenship law, and explanation of relevant procedures. Chapter 5 explains the department's policies on the residence requirement. The charts in Chapter 14, summarizing the current and old citizenship laws (since 1868 to present), are helpful to determine a person's claim to Canadian citizenship.The Canadian Citizenship Reform Project: In Search of the Holy Grail? - The history of the politicians' attempts to change citizenship law over the last 25 years. Conference paper by Professor Joseph Garcea from University of Saskatchewan. (June 1, 2003)
Bill C-18 - This was Government's most recent proposal for the new Canadian Citizenship Act. This bill was introduced in 2002 but died when the House of Commons was dissolved in 2003. The document is still interesting as an illustration of the government's ideas on how the citizenship law should be reformed.
CIC Canada - Citizenship Services - Comprehensive official information on acquiring and retaining Canadian citizenship, current and proposed legislation and procedures.
Citizenship Act and Regulations - The Citizenship Act of 1977 is the current law defining acquisition and loss of Canadian citizenship. The Regulations specify the legal procedures involved.
Dual Citizenship FAQ - This document attempts to describe the current situation in United States law regarding dual citizenship. Written by an American who immigrated to Canada.
The information contained herein is believed to be accurate and timely, but no warranty
as such is expressed or implied. Use of this site or its content confirms acceptance of such terms and conditions.
All other product and company names are trademarks of their respective companies.
Any reproduction of copyright material is strictly prohibited and enforced.
CANADA AND U.S
JUSTICE FOR ALL IS A LIE?