However, Lau also said Amy Ng is so busy caring for the lone surviving son Jason, who is still in coma, that the plan may still be on hold for another while.

The Leungs are all Canadians and they were holding Canadian passport when travelling in the Philippines. Media reports say that the Canadian embassy in HK still hasn’t paid Amy Ng a visit to date.

Amy Ng has never asked for any financial assistance from the Canadian embassy.

That make me wonder, yes, Amy Ng didn’t ask for help…But when so many people in HK and Canada (Chinese and Filipinos included) are praying for the Leung’s (look at the amount of facebook pages dedicated to Amy Ng and Jason Leung), it’s very hard to imagine that no representatives from Canada even care to make a visit to the widow just out of courtesy. Perhaps it’s a true statement as many callers to recent radio phone-ins say: “Us Chinese are never seen as real Canadians by Canada and the Canadian public.”

Meanwhile, Amy Ng issued an open letter asking all of us not to cry for them any more and encourage us to live on with strength:

Amy Ng Yau-woon lost her husband and two daughters in the Manila bloodbath. Her remaining child is fighting for his life in hospital. But the tragic mom’s message to the people of Hong Kong is: “Please don’t cry for us.”

The brave woman, whose family was shattered in last week’s tragedy, said in an open letter that Hong Kong must move on despite her personal suffering.

She wants to concentrate on taking care of her 19-year-old son, Jason Leung Song-xue, heartened by the support and wishes of the Hong Kong people.

“I don’t want to see all of you crying because of our sadness,” Ng wrote. “I know the people of Hong Kong are very concerned about Jason’s condition and from the bottom of my heart I thank all of you for the gifts and your caring hearts.

“I hope to take the liberty to encourage everyone to live on with strength and to return to normal life,” she said in the letter, read out by Tuen Mun Hospital’s head of neurosurgery, Dawson Fong To-sang, who is treating Jason.

Related posts

• Donald Tsang = tour operator? (9)
• 2 heros in a family (8)
• Photos – Hijack bus becomes tourist destination? (17)
• Canadians killed in Philippine tour bus carnage — and the anti-Chinese comments (100)
• Anti-Chinese graffiti not ‘hate’? (42)

Jessie Leung peeped out from the tour bus just hours before she was killed. (cropped from TV footage)

It turns out that Ken Leung wasn’t the sole hero of his family. According to the account of a survivor-witness, Jessie Leung, 14, took two bullets for her brother Jason, 18, when the gunman aimed the gun towards Jason’s head.

All five members of the Leung’s family are Canadian citizens. Ken Leung (58), daughter Doris Leung (21) and Jessie Leung (14) were all killed on the bus. Jason (18) suffers blunt force trauma to his head and is still in ICU after a head surgery. Mother Amy Ng (53) was slightly injured.

Earlier reports say that Ken Leung bravely charged at the gunman in an attempt to save the other passengers on board. He was described as a hero by many Canadian media.

Oriental Daily of Hong Kong (story in Chinese) interviewed Chan Kwok Chu, a tourist who survived the ordeal with (only) his hand being smashed by bullets.

“He (the gunman) was shooting at people’s heads! He was determined to kill us all!” said an emotional Chan.

Chan said the HK tourist guide was the first to be shot. After that, about 5 members of the tourist group jumped at the gunman, attempting to grab his gun and point it towards the bus roof. “Two or three were killed at this instant,” Chan said.

The gunman then began shooting at people’s heads, one person at a time, consecutively.

When the gunman aimed the gun towards Jason, his 14-year-old sister Jessie threw herself over Jason and took two bullets at her back. She died instantly.

What a heart-breaking story.

Related posts

• The Leungs may be laid to rest in Vancouver (1)
• Donald Tsang = tour operator? (9)
• Photos – Hijack bus becomes tourist destination? (17)
• Canadians killed in Philippine tour bus carnage — and the anti-Chinese comments (100)
• Anti-Chinese graffiti not ‘hate’? (42)

Amy Ng's husband was killed when trying to save his wife from bullets. (Reuters)

A family of five was crushed after 3 were killed, 1 is still in critical condition with gun shoot to the head during the tour bus carnage in the Philippines. CBC reports they might be holding Canadian passports.

Three of the nine people killed in a hostage-taking aboard a tour bus in the Philippines on Monday may have been Canadian citizens, media reported Tuesday.

Jessie Leung, 14, and Doris Leung, 21, were killed in gunfire during the hostage-taking, their mother told Hong Kong Cable Television. The two, who were students in Canada, were travelling in the Philippines as Canadian citizens, she said.

Their father, Ken Leung, 58, was also killed. He was a Canadian dual-citizen living in Hong Kong, CTV reported.

Ken Leung’s wife Amy Ng was unhurt, but their son, Jason Leung, 18, remained in hospital after surgery on a head wound.

Tour organizers had said earlier that five of the people involved in the hostage-taking were carrying Canadian passports.

What shocks me AGAIN is the reaction of many Canadians to this tragedy who left pages of comments on the CBC website. Rather than showing any sympathy they are pointing fingers at the dual citizenship of the Leung family (nonetheless, have to stress that there are many more comments that condemn the “distastefulness” of picking up on the victims’ citizenship).

Why would a tragic story like this could quickly turn into a citizenship/racism debate? The Leung family isn’t even asking for the help from the Canadian embassy…

Here’re a few examples:

Yeah sure part time Canadians again???

Why do you hold a “dual-citizenship” and claim you pay your taxes in Canada? Aren’t you in fact a dual-citizen for this very reason? If you are in fact in North Vancouver, then do you reside in Canada long enough during the year to pay your FULL share of Canadian taxes? How much tax do you pay on your holdings in Hong Kong? If you want to lay your love of Canada on the line then I will call you a part-time Canadian patriot – who uses dual citizenship to counter-balance the tax system to your advantage. I won’t call you a part-time Canadian, however your heart lies in your wallet and you’ll swear allegiance to the best tax policy that you can benefit from. Don’t give us your part-time patriot stance unless you tell us you pay 100% Canadian taxes. You only get “half” the right to advocate.

Most people around the world have a Canadian passport. It is as common as having a credit or debit card..we give them to everyone..

More Canadians of convenience.When are we going to wake up and insist that immigrants that choose to come to Canada actually live here and contribute and not just visit for the benefits?Just like the Tamils who are under no threat at home being allowed to stay.They are simply cue jumpers taking the place of those that play by the rules.We are becoming a laughing stock who will fold with a little well planned public demonstration.Enough already!!

Canadian passports should only be for Canadians who live, contribute in building and defending our economy and Canadian values.

China does not recognize dual nationality. The Article 3 of China Nationality Law holds that People’s Republic of China will not admit the dual nationality of a Chinese citizen. Moreover, the Article 9 of China Nationality Law declares that as soon as a Chinese takes a foreign citizenship, he will automatically lose his Chinese citizenship.

These people were all living in China under a Aliens’ Permanent Residence in China. Official website: http://www.chinaembassy-fi.org/eng/lsfw/t415689.htm. Many thousands of Chinese who left during the pre-1997 panic, returned to China with open arms under this arrangement. Thumbs down but do your research before you blindly come to the defence of some poor, picked on immigrant and accuse your fellow Canadian of the old standby…racism..

The sooner many of you admit to the truths about our irresponsible and mis-guided immigration admission practises, the blatant abuses of our system, and the ineptness of the department to maintain any form of control and monitoring, the the sooner we can get things fixed and begin to attract loyal, stable immigrants to help this country grow stronger.

If the Chinese government had not meddled in this crisis in the first place, the Philippines would have been free to exercise its own judgment as to when to storm the bus, etc without China breathing down its neck. China often meddles in others’ affairs!

All those immigrants from Hong Kong and Lebenon who just want Canadian citizenship in case violence was to breakout in their country and they can flee at taxpayers expense to Canada I dont welcome.

disagree with the assertions on here that if you hold a Canadian passport you’re automatically Canadian. The law may technically be that now because our immigration system is so whacked out we give citizenship to people who fill the most minimum requirements and then go back and live in their homeland. I’m sorry bleeding hearts, but this is wrong and we need to UNcitizenize people who just use this passport as a convenience. They are NOT Canadian even if you’re twisted minds say they are.

As for the article, it is somewhat unclear if the 2 girls were actually living here (which then indeed they would be Canadian)or were just students going to school here and their family was in Hong Kong.

Ok its like this… If you come here and learn our ways and mix in with society you are Canadian. If you come here and hide at home and send money back to your country then you are not a Canadian,
Simple.

Wow… the Chinese government’s angry about murderous behavior?

This one from the Vancouver Sun:

The fact is, the Leung’s aren’t asking Canadian taxpayers for help!!

More Canadians of convenience – never paying taxes here – getting in trouble in some rathole – now the Canadian taxpayers are to be on the hook to sort out someone elses problems.

Rebukes:

I bet if the victims in question were white Canadians, we wouldn’t hear so much as a single blip from those loudly croaking about “Canadians of convenience”.

I am shocked by some of the racism comments on this forum toward to Chinese Canadians. Canadians are supposedly open mind and multicultural. Why are you questioning person who is holding a Canadian passport as if they are still foreigners to Canada? I am not sure if Canada is as friendly country as it looks, especially its attitude towards to Chinese Canadian in general. Remember, most immigrants from HK to Canada are well educated or financially well off therefore they make contribution to Canadian society as well as building bridge between HK and Canada. Whereas some of your Canadians are taking advantage of the social welfare system that is partially supported by these HK people in Canada. Please peoople; this is a difficult moment for the killed hostages. Not time to make racist and fun comment to them. Rising China should not bring so much hate toward to Chinese people; you should see it as a great contribution to mankind.

There was an article about those two Canadians getting killed on a tour bus just like this one (albeit through an accident and in Switzerland instead). You can still find it by googling it.

No comments appeared on that article about “Canadians of convenience.” In fact, one of the top comments (with over 300+ agreements, and very few disagreements) was by someone saying that they were a “Canadian living in Switzerland.”

Even though there are “Canadians” who would admit to having a Canadian passport and living in an European country (ie, UK, France, Switzerland)… the comments about “Canadians of convenience” only come up when the story involves a NON-European country.

Some people will try to say that we shouldn’t pull out the “racism card.” But I think it’s pretty clear that racism is a strong factor behind these comments considering the amount of hypocrisy on stories that are about Europeans versus non-Europeans.

I am deeply disturbed by your comments about whether the victims are real Canadians. I am of Chinese descent, came to Canada from Hong Kong at age 5, have been educated in the Ontario system ever since. I have contributed to society, to taxes, and to the education of future Canadians in my role as a teacher with the YCDSB. I consider myself Canadian and am proud of my dual heritage. My family have made an honest living in Canada and consider this country are home. We frequently travel to East Asia and South East Asia for vacation with our relatives who reside in Hong Kong. From your comments, I am appalled to find that if anything were to happen to families like mine in a foreign country, we will be looked at as aliens, outsiders, and undeserving of sympathy.

Why is it SOOOOO hard to believe that Chinese Canadians, might well have traveled during the summer holiday to Hong Kong to visit friends and relatives and then go over to Manila (a short 2 hour hop from Hong Kong) for a simple bus tour???

All the comments about “handing out” passports and Chinese Canadians should “stay in the country” are insane and touch on blatant racism!!!

Should Canadians of European descent also be restricted from traveling?

Ashamed to be even remotely associated with people like that, even just through citizenship. This was a horrible tragedy on many levels. Country of origin should not matter. Human beings were terrorized and killed. Let’s give the racism a rest and let the healing begin….

I just love how CBC decided to call them “Canadian passport holders” rather than JUST Canadians. Are there non-Canadian Canadian passport holders? Does the government issue passports to non-citizens? No. So they are just Canadians.

CBC is framing their stories with more and more bias these days. Anyone who has ever studied marketing can tell you that these are done on purpose to pursue an agenda. Even CNN would have exercise such bias. I’m switching over to CTV.

CBC has handled this story clumsily at best. “Travelling in the Philippines as Canadian citizens” is a long-winded way of saying that they were Canadian citizens. The five people “carrying Canadian passports” are Canadian citizens, otherwise they would have been carrying travel documents or identity certificates (http://www.ppt.gc.ca/non-cdn/index.aspx?lang=eng). If the CBC cannot confirm they were Canadians, they shouldn’t be putting it in the headline. This is amateur, shoddy work that would have been cleaned up in any high school paper.

I was born in HK and raised in Canada for more than 20 years. I pay tax ever since I have to. Why Canadian government not willing to step in or even offer any help? Those two victims confirmed entered Philippines with a valid Canadian passport. So what’s the meaning of taking the oath but not being protected or helped?

I find it extremely saddening that, here we are, faced with a story of immense tragedy, and yet the boards is filled with hatred and debate about the true “citizenship” of those killed.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Have you no respect for the dead?

If we changed all the races in this story, would that finally elicit some shred of sympathy, compassion, and human decency from you?

All within 5 hours of the onset of the incident. The HKSAR leader was phoning the Filipino President (to which he ignored), as well as having a press conference announcing how the situation is being handle with China’s foreign affairs people (HK’s foreign affairs are handled through Beijing), and getting assurance from Philippines’ authorities the safety of the hostages.

Where were the people from the Canadian embassy? Over 24 hours later our Foreign Affiars people still can’t confirm if there were Canadians citizen involved!?

Is our Manila embassy only good for handling remittance and issuring work permits??

Related posts

• The Leungs may be laid to rest in Vancouver (1)
• Donald Tsang = tour operator? (9)
• 2 heros in a family (8)
• Photos – Hijack bus becomes tourist destination? (17)
• Anti-Chinese graffiti not ‘hate’? (42)

Finally, this is coming. If the funding cuts to pride parades aren’t first sight of anti-gay attitude of the Harper government, this one definitely is.

Well, I have to applaud to the Tories. They have the patience to wait for 4+ years to let this deep rooted sentiment slowly slip out. Applaud to Kenney for having the guts to be the “bad guy” on so many controversies the Tories hold dear of (being the bad guy, for instance, for “speaking up” against China’s human rights when Harper be the “good guy” during his historic December visit to China. watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKV7Un6HNZE&feature=player_embedded)

Having said that, this “progress” is the last thing I’d want to see Canada heading to. We used to be inclusive, open and socially progressive. But after the last few years, I feel a dramatic degradation to many Canadian values I used to love and identify with. (I am not talking about race, if some of my regular readers might suspect)

I just heard on the radio that a spokesperson for Kenney responded: “we have to make editorial decisions so that the guide won’t become encyclopedic”.

Is this a justifiable explanation? What do you thinks

Immigration Minister Kenney nixed gay rights in citizenship guide: documents

CP – Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney blocked any reference to gay rights in a new study guide for immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship, The Canadian Press has learned.

Internal documents show an early draft of the guide contained sections noting that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969; that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation; and that same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2005.

But Kenney, who fought same-sex marriage when it was debated in Parliament, ordered those key sections removed when his office sent its comments to the department last June. Senior department officials duly cut out the material, but made a last-ditch plea with Kenney in early August to have it reinstated.

“Recommend the re-insertion of the text boxes related to … the decriminalization of homosexual sex/recognition of same-sex marriage,” says a memorandum to Kenney from deputy minister Neil Yeates.

“Recommend the addition of ‘equality rights’ under list of rights. Had noted earlier that this bullet should be reinserted into the list as a means of noting the equality of all based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc …”

In the end, however, Kenney’s view trumped that of the bureaucrats. The 63-page guide, released with fanfare last November, contains no mention of gay and lesbian rights.

About 500,000 copies were printed and citizenship applicants will start being tested on its contents March 15.

The $400,000 project substantially updated an earlier edition of the guide created in 1995. The new version significantly expands sections on Canada’s military past and on aboriginals, drawing on the views of a panel of prominent Canadians.

The new guide got generally positive reviews when it was launched, though some immediately noted the absence of gay rights, including same-sex marriage.

The publication does include a picture of Olympic gold medal swimmer Mark Tewksbury, however, with a caption saying he is a “prominent activist for gay and lesbian Canadians.”

Drafts and other internal documents related to the guide were obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

“Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969 and more recently, civil marriage rights to same-sex couples was legalized nationwide in 2005,” the earliest draft of the guide says under the section Towards a Modern Canada.

And in the section on citizenship rights, the early draft said: “Equality Rights – Canadians are protected against discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or age.”

Neither sentence survived the minister’s red marker.

Kenney has steadfastly opposed same-sex marriage since his time as an opposition MP in the House of Commons.

He spoke against the Civil Marriage Act, or Bill C-38, when it was debated in the Commons in February 2005. And days earlier, Kenney told a session with Toronto-area Punjabi journalists that gays had every right to marry – as long as it wasn’t someone of the same sex.

He reaffirmed his stand in 2006 when the newly elected Conservative government attempted without success to revoke the legislation.

Last year, Kenney appointed a longtime Conservative who opposes same-sex marriage to the Immigration and Refugee Board, which among other things makes decisions about whether gays can be given refugee status in Canada.

When the new guide was released Nov. 12, Kenney brushed off a reporter’s question about why it lacked any reference to same-sex marriage.

“We can’t mention every legal decision, every policy of the government of Canada,” he said.

“We try to be inclusive and include a summary. I can tell you that if you were to read the old book, you wouldn’t even know that there are gay and lesbian Canadians.” He then noted the caption under Tewksbury’s photo.

Kenney’s spokesman reiterated that the 1995 guide “produced by the Liberals” did not mention gays and lesbians.

“We can endlessly debate what was included or not included,” Alykhan Velshi said in an email last week. “Unavoidably, choices had to be made about content because we had to ensure the guide did not become encyclopedic.”

Velshi also noted the new guide does not refer to marriage at all, whether opposite sex or same sex.

The gay-rights group Egale Canada met with the minister in early December after learning the booklet made no reference to gay and lesbian rights, and is negotiating with the department to have them included in the next printing, about a year away.

Executive director Helen Kennedy said Kenney told the group that gay rights had been “overlooked” when the guide was being prepared. She expressed surprise when told draft versions contained references to gay rights and that they were ordered removed.

“I’m hopeful and optimistic that we’re going to get it fixed because we’re not happy with it.”

The NDP’s critic on gay and lesbian issues said new immigrants need to know about basic rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“The minister, Jason Kenney, can’t edit gay and lesbian Canadians out of Canadian history,” Bill Siksay said. “That’s something that newcomers to Canada should know about.”

Liberal MP Marlene Jennings called Kenney’s actions “abhorrent.”

“It’s unfortunate that this government again has driven an ideological wedge on an issue of fundamental charter rights.”

The Canadian Press previously reported that other sections of the draft version of the guide were excised at the suggestion of the panel of prominent Canadians.

The deleted sections included one reference that said Canadian churches ran Indian residential schools, where aboriginal children were abused.

Related posts

• The Leungs may be laid to rest in Vancouver (1)
• 2 heros in a family (8)
• Canadians killed in Philippine tour bus carnage — and the anti-Chinese comments (100)
• Taiwan Pride (5)
• 1/3 Canadians want fewer immigrants (18)

However, Kenney talked to OMNI news last night and I watched the entire interview. Since OMNI aired the full interview, and the content of Kenney’s interpretation of the language requirement shown on TV is consistent with what CP says, I’m not too sure why he says the media have “mischaracterised” his opinion.

Anyway, I still think it’s a good thing to ask immigrants to improve their English before granting them citizenships. And I agree with Kenney’s remarks that poor language skills only hurt the immigrants’ ability to get jobs.

Statement by Minister Jason Kenney on Immigration and Official Languages

Today, the Hon. Jason Kenney, PC, MP, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration, and Multiculturalism issued the following statement:

“Yesterday I delivered a speech to the 11th Annual Metropolis Conference. In it, I spoke about how the federal government can do more to promote the social and economic integration of new Canadians.

My speech addressed a number of issues: improving foreign credentials recognition, ensuring the federal multiculturalism program is more closely aligned with the needs of newcomers, and increasing the uptake of immigrant settlement services among new Canadians.

I explained how our government has invested an additional $1.4 billion in immigrant settlement programs. This includes funding for free English and French language training. I pointed out, however, that only 25% of newcomers are using the free language training programs, and that this is proof that the government needs to do more to encourage newcomers to learn an official language.

Unfortunately, certain media outlets have mischaracterised my remarks, accusing the government of planning to “overhaul” the immigration system to require immigrants to be fluent in an official language. This is simply not true.

Let me be clear: Immigrants who are not conversant in an official language can immigrate to Canada, although the ability to speak an official language is obviously an advantage under the points system.

And the Citizenship Act already requires a basic ability to communicate in an official language, and has done so for decades. I did not propose, and am not proposing, any changes to this requirement, nor to the exemption for applicants under the age of 18 or over the age of 55.

Put simply, the focus of my speech was to discuss how we need to do more to empower newcomers to make greater use of the free language training programs that our government is funding.”

Here are some quotations from yesterday’s speech and the news conference that followed:

“Again I think we need to look at ways to encourage people to improve their language skills before they even arrive here. That’s the best head start they can get in finding a good job and getting a bright future in Canada.”

“Government policy has recognized the importance of language. Programs such as LINC as well as our enhanced language training and Bridge to Work programs give newcomers in Canada access to programs that aim to develop language skills. Only 25% of newcomers to Canada actually enroll in the free LINC programs that we offer to permanent residents prior to citizenship. Why is the response so low and what can we do to address it? Are the language training programs we support responding as much as possible to the needs of newcomers? We’re working to address these issues and I really look forward to input that you can provide. In the first Speech from the Throne following the last election, our government promised to work with the provinces to increase uptake in settlement services. Since 2006 we’ve substantially increased, more than tripling funding to settlement programs to the tune of an additional $1.4 billion over five years in provinces and territories outside Quebec to reach roughly the per capita funding for Quebec. So the funding is there but I still have questions about the actual response from newcomers. Are there new ways we should consider to better encourage the use of settlement programs such as language training?”

“Last January I was visiting our High Commission in New Delhi. I sat in on a few immigration interviews. I encountered a woman who has lived in Canada for nearly 15 years, been a Canadian citizen for nearly 12 years who lives and works in Surrey. This lady was sponsoring a spouse to come to Canada but she could not conduct the immigration interview with the Canadian official in either of our official languages. She had to conduct the interview through a Punjabi translator, which made me wonder. Is this an isolated example? Regrettably I don’t believe it’s isolated enough. Regrettably it’s too typical I believe of our failure to give people an opportunity to integrate.”

Related posts

• The Leungs may be laid to rest in Vancouver (1)
• 2 heros in a family (8)
• Canadians killed in Philippine tour bus carnage — and the anti-Chinese comments (100)
• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)

Canadian parents and their adopted kids celebrated the citizenship amendment in 2007.

Remember what they said the Bill C-35 that amended the Citizenship Act would waive the need for kids adopted from China or Vietnam to live in Canada long enough to become Canadians … and how generous they looked when they invited a bunch of Canadian parents (mostly white) holding their newly adopted Asian kids happily waving Canadian flags?

Well, it looks like Bill C-35 does not seem as generous as the government wants us to believe.

On the December 13, 2008 issue of Canada Gazette, the government releases regulations (detailed implementation rules) to the amendment. It was then when something gone unnoticed last February has come under the light.

A paragraph in Canada Gazette says:

In addition to recognizing citizens, the Bill also protects the value of Canadian citizenship for the future. After Bill C-37 comes into force in 2009, individuals born outside Canada to a parent who was a Canadian citizen at the time of their birth will only be Canadians at birth if

* the parent was born in Canada; or
* the parent immigrated to Canada and became a Canadian citizen.

This means that a child born in another country after the new law comes into effect will not be a Canadian citizen by birth if he/she was born outside Canada to a Canadian parent who was also born outside Canada to a Canadian parent.

The aforementioned limitation will also apply to foreign-born persons adopted by a Canadian parent. Once granted citizenship under provisions in the Act for adopted children, foreign-born adopted children of Canadian citizens will be considered to be the first generation born abroad. An exception to this change exists for children in the second (or further) generation born abroad to, or adopted abroad by, Canadian citizens who are employed outside Canada by the Canadian Forces, the federal public service, or the public service of a province.

This means that the children of adopted children who are born overseas will not be granted citizenship “naturally”.

For immigrants, the citizenship will be cut off at second generation. This means that if your son/daughter has acquire Canadian citizenship through immigration, and he/she decides to give birth to a child outside of Canada, that kid would not “inherit” Canadian citizenship as it could be now (though you have to go through some registration process).

This is a HUGE change to the Citizenship Act and it has gone unnoticed! By now Bill C-35 has long passed by the parliament, gained royal assent and the accompanying regulations have already published in Canada Gazette, it means no one will be able to refute it. In fact, the new regulations will come into effect no later than April 17, 2009.

One point to note, though, if these kids are born in Canada, there will be no citizenship problem.

Does our government not know the effect of this amendment? That they are too naive to truly believe they are protecting the value of our citizenship? Well, the answer is no again.

The analysis/commentary accompanied the online publication of Bill C-37 hosted on the parliament website, it says:

A second contentious issue raised by the bill relates to citizenship by descent. Under Bill C-37, the child born abroad to a parent who derived his or her citizenship from a Canadian parent who was also born abroad will not automatically become a Canadian citizen. In other words, Bill C-37 cuts off citizenship by descent after the first generation born abroad. The benefits of this approach include clarity and certainty; the opportunity to repeal retention and registration requirements that the Government has no way of communicating to those at risk of losing their citizenship; and an end to the possibility of Canadian citizenship being passed down indefinitely to people who have little or no connection with Canada. The major problem with this approach is that it may result in some people not being Canadian citizens at birth even though they and their parents have a substantial connection with Canada.

A third criticism the bill is likely to attract arises because of the proposed cut-off described above. Under the bill, a person who is the second or subsequent generation born abroad to a Canadian parent may be stateless if he or she does not acquire citizenship of the state of birth, or through his or her other parent. Canada is a contracting state to the United Nations’ Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.(32) Under article 4 of that Convention, a contracting state is required to grant its nationality to a person not born in the territory of the contracting state, who would otherwise be stateless, if the nationality of one or both of the person’s parents at the time of the person’s birth was that of the contracting state. Such a grant of nationality may be subject to certain stipulated conditions, however. The provision included in Bill C-37 to deal with statelessness is compliant with the Convention, but only minimally so.

It is not that I do not support our government to take steps to protect the values of Canadian citizenship, but I really do not like the way this government does thing — slipping through cracks. What is accountability and transparency this government advertised when it took office in 2006? Where were Raymond Chan, Olivia Chow, Libby Davis etc when they were supposed to be scrutinizing every act of the government?

Read the rightwing-friendly article by the National Post titled “New immigration rules create two-tier Canadians: critics.” The article provides an explanation for the motive of this amendment and why the government doesn’t want us to notice:

The issue of so-called “Canadians of convenience” was highlighted during Israel’s 2006 military action in Lebanon, when the federal government conducted an emergency evacuation of Canadian citizens from the Middle East, including some who were living there permanently.

So whenever the government gives you some goodies, always keep your eyes at what it is taking away from you.

Donald Galloway, a law professor at the University of Victoria specializing in immigration and refugee law, says it is odd that the Harper government would make it easier for adopted children to become Canadians, then propose a new regulation that would take away the citizenship rights their parents enjoyed.

“They’re giving benefits with one hand and taking it away with the other,” said Mr. Galloway, who is the father of a nine-year-old girl adopted from China. “You now have to worry about where your kids are born.”

Related posts

• The Leungs may be laid to rest in Vancouver (1)
• 2 heros in a family (8)
• Canadians killed in Philippine tour bus carnage — and the anti-Chinese comments (100)
• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)