Why Cut Loose Future Canadians When Tax Laws, Not Citizenship Laws, Need to Change?

Author(s): Don J. DeVoretz

Published: July 14, 2009  

Op-Ed

On April 17, 2009 an amendment to Canada’s citizenship act began the process of undermining Canada’s established generous twin principles for obtaining citizenship and created two classes of Canadians by removing citizenship ascension privileges for some children born to Canadians abroad. This is a fundamental and worrisome change.

Major immigrant receiving countries (Australia, New Zealand, United States and Canada) currently adhere to the twin principles of blood (jus sanguinis) and soil (jus solis) to confer citizenship on their immigrants. These two principles have insured the successful integration of millions of immigrants and their progeny over the last century in the so called “New World.” In fact, recent research highlights the positive political and economic effects of a rapid ascension of immigrants to citizenship. When you deviate from these twin principles of citizenship ascension immigrant integration problems appear. For example, if you adhere only to the jus sanguinis then you create an ethnic based citizenship where foreigners and their progeny are almost always politically excluded, such as in Switzerland. If you only confer citizenship based on jus solis, such as in Singapore, then the progeny of Singaporean citizens born abroad are either stateless or obtain a different citizenship than their parents. These latter outcomes are indeed troubling.

However, we must recognize that the maintenance of the joint principles of blood and soil for citizenship acquisition impose a cost on any country, including Canada. But how large is this cost to Canadians and in what ways will this cost appear? First, the number of overseas Canadian dual citizens will rise as more and more Canadians are born abroad and obtain Canadian citizenship via the blood principle while perhaps becoming eligible for a second citizenship based on birthplace. Next, the simultaneous existence of the blood and soil principles for citizenship acquisition insures that Canadian citizenship can be inherited across multiple generations abroad with the attendant loss of cultural, political and economic ties to Canada over successive generations. However, to date we have no empirical information on the number of dual Canadian citizens living abroad or a measure of lost ties to Canada.

In the absence of solid empirical information why did we embark on this substantive change in citizenship policy to penalize Canadians abroad? Are Canadians in fact becoming increasingly provincial as our world globalizes? Before I answer these questions let me state a few observations. First, the Canadian citizenship backlash is limited to foreign-born naturalized Canadians living overseas and not native-born Canadians. In fact, Canadians admire native-born Canadians on the international stage in sports, enterprise, entertainment and welcome them back with awards be they Wayne Gretsky or Leonard Cohen. So the central question is why do Canadians resident in Canada feel so differently about naturalized Canadians overseas today and why have some Canadians in Canada become inward looking? Two core reasons explain this antipathy: fiscal anxieties and racism. In fact, the tension between many Canadian policy makers and Canada’s overseas population is almost exclusively driven by fiscal concerns and taxes are the wedge issue. In short, if Canadians abroad can demonstrate little or no permanent attachment to Canada they are exempt from Canadian income taxation. Thus, Canadians at home correctly perceive that Canadians abroad are obsessed with providing no evidence of attachment. The result of this attachment avoidance is that you have a disengaged Canadian population abroad feeding domestic policymakers myopia. If you add the issue of divided loyalties as evidenced by concerns over foreign-born Canadians holding dual citizenship then the issues arising from a growing overseas population are now two dimensional; fiscal concerns coupled with accusations of alleged opportunism by naturalized citizens clinging to dual citizenship.

Given this analysis it is a mistake in my judgment to suspend the “jus sanguinis” principle for citizenship acquisition. First it is not clear that a growing Canadian dual citizenship population is a bad thing, since many positive outcomes arise under dual citizenship. Next, the perceived problem of non-attachment of overseas Canadians is a byproduct of our tax laws and not citizenship laws. Thus, one should change the tax laws and not citizenship ascension rules. Finally, and most importantly, this creation of a two-tiered citizenship class with and without ascension rights will undermine Canada’s continued ability to attract talented immigrants who desire Canadian citizenship, children and mobility abroad.

In sum, Canada’s new citizenship legislation is not a byproduct of systemic research on the condition of overseas Canadian citizens; rather, it is rooted in an emotionalism.

Don DeVoretz is the Research Director, Canadians Abroad Project of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

An edited version of this op-ed appeared in the Vancouver Sun on July 13, 2009.