Taylor v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Taylor v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2006-09-01
Neutral citation
2006 FC 1053
File numbers
T-1024-05
Notes
Digest
Decision Content
Date: 20060901
Docket: T-1024-05
Citation: 2006 FC 1053
BETWEEN:
JOSEPH TAYLOR
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
MARTINEAU J.
REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] On April 5, 2005, M.A. Hefferon, Citizenship Officer, dismissed the application for proof of citizenship made by the Applicant in November 2003, thus giving rise to the present judicial application.
[2] The Applicant is the natural son of a Canadian soldier who served overseas during World War II. He was born in England in 1944. His parents married in 1945. He landed in Canada with his mother in 1946. The Applicant’s parents’ marriage broke up after a few months. The Applicant returned with his mother to England six weeks before the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15 (the 1947 Citizenship Act) came into force.
[3] Both natural parents of the Applicant undoubtedly became Canadian citizens on January 1, 1947: (1) the Applicant’s father because he was born in Canada and had not become an alien; (2) the Applicant’s mother because she was a British subject who had married abroad a Canadian national, and who had been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence before the coming into force of the 1947 Citizenship Act.
[4] But the Applicant, according to the Respondent, has no automatic right to citizenship because his parents were not married at the time of his birth. To paraphrase the Respondent’s position with respect to dependents of Canadian soldiers who were repatriated from Europe after 1945, although these brides and children may have been welcomed and even financially assisted by the Canadian authorities to come in Canada, with the special status of “Canadian citizens” under the Immigration Act, 1910, S.C. 1910, c. 27, as revised R.S.C. 1927, c. 93 (the 1910 Immigration Act), this did not automatically made them “Canadian citizens” upon the coming into force of the 1947 Citizenship Act.
[5] Under the 1910 Immigration Act, a member of a “prohibited class” could not enter or remain in Canada (see Note 1). Despite the fact that the Applicant and his mother were “British subjects”, such status did not, by itself, constitute a licence to enter, land or remain in Canada (see Note 2). Only “Canadian citizens” and persons who had “Canadian domicile” within the meaning of the 1910 Immigration Act were allowed to enter and remain in Canada. The Applicant relies on Order in Council re entry into Canada of dependents of members of the Canadian Armed Forces, P.C. 1945-858 (9 February 1945), which was passed in 1945 and remained in force until May 15, 1947. Under that Order in Council, where a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces who served during World War II was a “Canadian citizen” or had “Canadian domicile” within the meaning of the 1910 Immigration Act, his dependents were automatically granted the same status upon landing in Canada.
[6] In the present case, the Respondent submits that Canadian citizenship can only be acquired by the Applicant if he complies with all the requirements of section 5 of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, as modified (the current Citizenship Act), which provides that an application for grant of citizenship be made to the Minister.
[7] By analogy, the Respondent’s counsel referred this Court to a 1964 Canadian Citizenship Branch publication titled “British Subjects and Canadian Citizens”, where one can read the following observation:
The position of the British subject in Canada who is not a citizen, can be compared to that of an honoured guest in someone else’s house. Although he may share many or all of the privileges enjoyed by members of the family, he is nonetheless only a guest.
[8] For the reasons mentioned below, I have come to the conclusion that the Applicant is a Canadian citizen, that the impugned decision rendered by the Citizenship Officer should be set aside, and that the Minister be directed to issue a certificate of citizenship to the Applicant.
[9] In so doing, I also dismiss the alternative argument made by the Respondent to the effect that the Applicant has lost his Canadian citizenship in the meantime. To the extent that:
(a) the Respondent invokes or is authorized under subsection 3(1), paragraphs 3(1)(d) or (e), or section 7 of the current Citizenship Act to rely on the loss of citizenship provisions found in former citizenship legislation, including section 13 of An Act to Amend the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1952-53, c. 23 (the 1953 Citizenship Amendment Act) and subsection 4(2) of An Act respecting citizenship, nationality naturalization and status of aliens, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-19 (the 1970 Citizenship Act);
or
(b) the Applicant is denied the right to make an application for resumption of citizenship as a result of the repeal of the 1970 Citizenship Act by section 36 of An Act respecting citizenship, S.C. 1974-75-76, c. 108 (the 1977 Citizenship Act) and the application of subsection 3(1) and sections 7 and 11 of the current Citizenship Act,
the Court declares that the impugned legislative provisions are contrary to due process and infringe paragraphs 1(a) and 1(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44, reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, App. III (the Bill of Rights) and the right of an individual not to be deprived to life, liberty or security of the person except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice guaranteed by section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to Canada Act, 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11 (the Charter). These infringements are not justified under section 1 of the Charter and as a result, the above provisions are inoperative.
[10] Furthermore, to the extent that subsection 3(1), paragraphs 3(1)(b), (d) and (e), and section 8 of the current Citizenship Act, when read together, authorize the dismissal of the Applicant’s application for proof of citizenship on the ground that:
(a) the citizenship of a child born out of wedlock before February 15, 1977, outside Canada, can only be derived from the child’s mother, or
(b) there is an automatic loss of citizenship if an application for retention of citizenship has not been made by the child born out of wedlock, before February 15, 1977, outside Canada, between the age of 21 and 24 years,
the Court finds that these provisions contravene subsection 15(1) of the Charter and the contraventions are not justified under section 1 of the Charter.
[11] The background is very important in the case at bar and the parties’ numerous arguments tended to revolve around the construction and effects of different statutes and Orders in Council on war brides and their children (including the Applicant), as well as the issue of the extent to which the past or present application of the impugned legislative provisions is contrary to the Applicant’s right to due process of law and equality rights. Accordingly, for a better understanding of the answers given to the complex legal questions which were raised in the present case, these reasons will follow the following general plan:
I. Factual Background
II. Decision under review
III. Standard of review
IV. Issues raised and submissions made by the parties
V. Evolution of immigration, nationality and citizenship law
VI. Orders in Council, P.C. 7318 and P.C. 858
VII. The 1947 Citizenship Act
VIII. The 1952 Citizenship Act and the 1953 Amendment Citizenship Act
IX. The 1970 Citizenship Act
X. The 1977 Citizenship Act and the current Citizenship Act
XI. Conduct of the parties
XII. The statutory interpretation issue
XIII. Retroactive or retrospective application of the Charter
XIV. The due process issue
XV. The equality rights issue
XVI. Conclusion
I. Factual Background
[12] Between 1939 and 1945, nearly half a million Canadian soldiers poured into England: “… Naturally, the Canadians met British women, and whenever that happened there was romance and its inevitable results.” An estimated 30,000 Canadian war children were born in Britain and Europe during World War II – some 22,000 in England alone, another six to seven thousand in Holland after the country was liberated: see Melynda Jarratt, “The Canadians in Britain, 1939-1946” in Olga Rains, Lloyd Rains & Melynda Jarratt, Voices of the Left Behind (Toronto: The Dundurn Group, 2006) 15 at 16; see also Melynda Jarratt, “By Virtue of his Service” in Voices of the Left Behind, supra at 200. The Applicant is one of those war children.
[13] The Applicant’s father, Joe Taylor Sr., was born in Canada and was 18 years old when he arrived in England in 1942. He was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. Sometime between late 1943 and early 1944, he began a relationship with the Applicant’s mother, Jenny Rose Harvey. She was born on the Isle of Wight (England) and was two years older than the Applicant’s father. The couple had decided to marry in the spring of 1944. However, Joe Taylor Sr. needed permission from his Commanding Officer before they could marry. Due to the war, various restrictions and limitations were placed on the status of Canadian Armed Forces personnel. Preparations for the D-Day invasion were well underway in the spring of 1944. On D-Day, June 6, 1944, Joe Taylor Sr. was deployed to France before the couple was given permission to marry. When Joe Taylor Sr. left England, Jenny Rose Harvey was pregnant. The Applicant was born in Britain on December 8, 1944, while his father was still stationed in France.
[14] Joe Taylor Sr. was not permitted to return to England until February of 1945 when he was granted permission by his Commanding Officer to marry the Applicant’s mother. They were married on May 5, 1945. Joe Taylor Sr. remained in England until February of 1946 when he was discharged from the Canadian Armed Forces. He was then repatriated to Canada and returned to Cumberland, British Columbia where he prepared for the arrival of his wife and child.
[15] Not all Canadian servicemen married the women they met in Europe. That being said, between 1942 and 1948, 43,454 war brides – about 94% British – and their 20,997 children landed in Canada. Their transportation was sponsored by the Canadian government through an organization called the Canadian Wives Bureau, an adjunct of the Department of National Defence. It was formed in 1944 in response to the realization that the war was soon going to be over and that nearly 70,000 dependents of members of the Canadian Armed Forces would be landing in Canada.
[16] The Applicant and his mother obtained passage on the Queen Mary which, on this voyage, was used solely for the repatriation of Canadian soldiers and their families. They landed in Canada on July 4, 1946 at Halifax, Nova Scotia. There is no question that they were legally admitted in Canada. The repatriation of war brides and their children was a happy event. Indeed, when the Applicant and his mother arrived in Vancouver, the Comox Newspaper, the local journal of the largest town nearest to Cumberland, signaled their arrival. Unfortunately, once reunited with Joe Taylor Sr., the Applicant’s mother’s life was far from idyllic. It would appear that after having experienced the severe horrors of war, the Applicant’s father was not the same man. His personality had changed. After a few months, the marriage broke up, apparently due to the violence of the Applicant’s father against his mother.
[17] Since the Applicant’s mother had no immediate family and nowhere else to go in Canada, she was left with little choice but to return to England with her young child (see Note 3). The parents of the Applicant’s mother sold their furniture in order to pay for their return to England.
[18] The Applicant was not yet two years old when he left Canada under his mother’s care. They first reached New York City in the United States of America. Both traveled from New York to the United Kingdom with the Canadian passport issued to the Applicant’s mother in New York on October 11, 1946.
[19] While he was growing up in England, the Applicant was informed by his mother and believed himself to be “half-Canadian” and “half-British”. Both he and his mother thought they were citizens of both Canada and the United Kingdom. When he was about 7 or 8 years old, the Applicant started to ask questions about his father in Canada. His mother still had the Applicant’s father’s address in British Columbia. The Applicant corresponded on a fairly regular basis with his father for a couple of years, until the correspondence with his father became less frequent and, eventually, ceased.
[20] On December 8, 1965, the Applicant turned 21. Under applicable Canadian citizenship legislation he was no longer a minor.
[21] At the age of 24, already married with two children of his own, the Applicant approached Canada House in London, England, about the possibility of establishing himself in Canada. He explained that he was the son of a repatriated Canadian veteran who had lived in Canada in his early childhood. He was apparently given standard application forms for immigration which required a “sponsor” in Canada. He completed the forms and sent them to his father at his last known address.
[22] The Applicant waited many months for a response from his father, but none was forthcoming. Since he received no replies to his correspondence and had no other address for his father, he continued with his life in England and concentrated on building his accounting practice and raising his family.
[23] For the next 30 years, the Applicant did not make any attempt to come to Canada (or assert a claim to Canadian citizenship). In 1999, the Applicant made a trip to British Columbia and visited Nanaimo where his father was born. Upon his return to England, the Applicant went to Canada House in London to enquire into the possibility of moving to Canada. He was told that he had lost his Canadian citizenship on his 24th birthday.
[24] In November 2000, the Applicant discovered that his father had died in 1996 and that he had seven half-brothers and half-sisters, all of whom lived on Vancouver Island. In the meantime, the Applicant had purchased a residence in Victoria, British Columbia and during the years 2000 to 2004, he spent respectively 8, 11, 14, 18 and 20 weeks in Canada (at the time the Applicant filed his application in this Court in June 2005, he was planning to spend 22 weeks in Canada).
[25] In February 2003, the Applicant made an application to obtain a certificate of Canadian citizenship (based on the fact that he was the child of a Canadian Armed Forces member permanently stationed in England who was repatriated and later lived in Canada), but was told that his application would not be forwarded for further processing because he had lost citizenship the day he turned 24.
[26] In November 2003, the Applicant presented a new application for proof of citizenship and this time, it was accepted for further processing by the Respondent. However, some 18 months later, the Applicant was informed by letter dated April 5, 2005, from M. A. Hefferon, Citizenship Officer, that his application was dismissed on the ground that he had never acquired citizenship status. It is that latter decision which the Applicant now seeks to have reviewed and set aside by the Court.
[27] Since 2003, the Applicant has addressed numerous letters to immigration officials and politicians including the Right Hon. Paul Martin and the Hon. Joe Volpe in their former capacities of Prime Minister and Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, seeking assistance with his situation, but with no avail. An application for reconsideration of the impugned decision was made to the Citizenship Officer in 2005, but it has apparently been left unanswered.
[28] At the hearing of this judicial proceeding in Vancouver, on May 30, 2006, Respondent’s counsel asserted that there is no legal way whatsoever that the Applicant can be recognized today as a Canadian citizen, unless he is naturalized and makes a formal application for a grant of citizenship under section 5 of the current Citizenship Act. Respondent’s counsel also informed the Court that he had no instructions whatsoever to settle the case or to agree to any consent order (as was done in Augier v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] 4 F.C.R. 150 (F.C.), a case which presents similar, albeit not identical, features as the case at bar).
[29] After the hearing, the parties were given the opportunity to complete their record, to make additional submissions with respect to cases and other materials judicially noted by the Court, and to clarify their position with respect to the constitutional issues which were raised, including submissions with respect to constitutional declarations and remedies.
II. Decision under review
[30] The Citizenship Officer based her decision on the 1947 Citizenship Act which came into force on January 1, 1947.
[31] Because the Applicant was “born out of wedlock” (a condition the Applicant is unable to change), the Citizenship Officer determined that the Applicant cannot derive Canadian citizenship through his Canadian born father. The Citizenship Officer determined that in the case of an “illegitimate child” born before January 1, 1947, Canadian citizenship can only be derived from his mother.
[32] Since the Applicant’s mother was born in England and, at the time of the Applicant’s birth, did not reside in Canada, the Citizenship Officer dismissed the application for proof of citizenship made by the Applicant.
III. Standard of review
[33] In the case at bar, the parties submit that the impugned decision should be examined on a correctness standard. Having considered all relevant factors (Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226), I come to the same conclusion.
[34] Pursuant to subsection 12(2) of the current Citizenship Act, certificates of citizenship are issued to naturalized citizens after completion of the process but natural-born citizens must make an application for proof of citizenship before any certificate is issued by the Minister. This asks for a correct interpretation and application of any applicable legislation, regulation or order in council by the Citizenship Officer. The requirements for citizenship are enumerated at section 3 of the current Citizenship Act which came into force on February 15, 1977. With respect to a person born before that date, “[s]ubject to [the current Citizenship Act], [this person] is a citizen if … the person was a citizen immediately before February 15, 1977, or … was entitled, immediately before February 15, 1977, to become a citizen under paragraph 5(1)(b) of the former Act” (see paragraphs 3(1)(d) and (e) of the current Citizenship Act). Moreover, section 7 of the current Citizenship Act provides that a person who is a citizen shall not cease to be a citizen except in accordance with Part II of the current Citizenship Act.
[35] The decision rendered by the Citizenship Officer must not be contrary to law: see paragraphs 18.1(4)(b) and (f) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, as amended. This goes well beyond this Court assuring itself that the interpretation chosen by the Citizenship Officer accords with any applicable citizenship legislation ( or regulation or Order in Council) : see paragraph 18.1(4)(b) of the Federal Courts Act. In this regard, the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law, regulation, administrative decision or order authorized by statute that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect (subsection 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11) unless, in cases where a right guaranteed by the Charter is infringed or denied, such an infringement or denial can be justified under section 1 of the Charter: see Slaigth Communication Inc. v. Davidson, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038. The Bill of Rights is a quasi-constitutional statute: unless the conflicting legislation expressly declares that it operates notwithstanding the Bill (as required by section 2) where federal legislation conflicts with its protections, the latter applies and the legislation (or part thereof) is inoperative: see R. v. Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282; Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 884 at para. 28; Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 40 at para. 32.
[36] I note that the Citizenship Officer has no particular expertise with regards to the questions of legal applicability raised in this instance, which include determining when and how citizenship status was acquired under the law, and whether by operation of the law it was lost in the meantime. In this regard, the Court must be satisfied that any requirement prescribed by law or currently imposed by the Citizenship Officer with respect to the acquisition or extinguishment of citizenship status by operation of the law, does not infringe or deny any of the rights and freedoms constitutionally guaranteed by the Charter or declared to exist in Canada by the Bill of Rights. There is no room for deference in these matters: see Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256. Accordingly, the impugned decision must be reviewed on a correctness standard and in light of the constitutional validity of any applicable provision of the current Citizenship Act.
IV. Issues raised and submissions made by the parties
[37] In a nutshell, this case raises issues of (1) statutory interpretation (2) due process, and (3) equality rights. The submissions made by the parties with respect to these issues can be summarized as follows.
1. The statutory interpretation issue
[38] The Applicant submits that the Citizenship Officer erred in law in determining that the Applicant is not a Canadian citizen based on her examination of prior citizenship legislation. In particular, the Applicant submits that the Citizenship Officer failed to consider the applicability and effects of Order in Council, P.C. 858. Since the Applicant’s father was at all relevant times a “Canadian citizen” (before or after 1947), the Applicant and his mother automatically became “Canadian citizens”.
[39] Essentially, the Respondent submits that Order in Council, P.C. 858 did not confer “citizenship status”; rather, it merely facilitated the entry and landing in Canada of the Applicant and his mother for the purpose of Canadian immigration legislation.
2. The due process issue
[40] The Respondent submits, in the alternative, that if the Citizenship Officer erred in law in determining that the Applicant did not acquire citizenship on January 1, 1947, he otherwise lost it in the meantime by operation of the law. First, any “Canadian domicile” (within the meaning of the applicable immigration legislation) acquired or deemed to have been acquired by the Applicant and his mother upon their landing in Canada on July 4, 1946, was definitively lost following their voluntary departure from Canada (sometime after October 11, 1946) and residence in England for more than one year. Second, the Applicant lost his citizenship when he reached the age of 24: this is so because prior applicable citizenship legislation provided that a citizen born outside Canada prior to February 15, 1977, had to make an application for retention of citizenship between his 21st and 24th birthdays, which the Applicant failed to do in this case. While such requirements were not known by the applicant or divulged to him before he reached the age of 24 years, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
[41] Essentially, the Applicant submits that when he left Canada in October 1946 under the care of his mother, there were no such statutory requirements. If the statutory requirements adopted in 1953 can apply here (another question in these proceedings), the Applicant is of the view that the Respondent cannot impose or invoke them: see paragraph 3(1)(d) of the current Citizenship Act. First, because these requirements were never considered by the Citizenship Officer. Second, because they do not respect the due process of law, including any of the rights declared to exist under paragraphs 1(a) and 2(e) of the Bill of Rights (which was applicable at the time the alleged loss of citizenship occurred), or otherwise guaranteed by section 7 of the Charter.
3. The equality rights issue
[42] The Applicant further submits that both the prior and current legislative citizenship schemes are “discriminatory”. Children born outside Canada, in wedlock or out of wedlock, prior to and after February 15, 1977, are treated differently with respect to the acquisition and the extinguishment of citizenship status. The differential treatment is currently based on one’s date of birth (an analogous ground to age) and, in effect, perpetuates former differential treatment based on the marital status and sex of one’s parents, which are the key factors to determine whether citizenship is derived from one’s father or mother. The Applicant submits that such differential treatment reflects a demeaning and prejudicial view of “illegitimate children” which is discriminatory and infringes the rights to equality guaranteed by subsection 15(1) of the Charter.
[43] Essentially, the Respondent submits that the impugned statutory provisions do not distinguish between claimants based on any enumerated or analogous ground of discrimination. Moreover, the Respondent submits that the Charter cannot be given a “retrospective” or “retroactive” application, so as to confer citizenship status on the Applicant.
V. Evolution of immigration, nationality and citizenship law
1. Citizens and non-citizens today
[44] Simply stated, citizenship is the status of being a citizen. Today, we can generally say that Canadian citizenship represents a sharing of sovereignty and a social contract between individuals and our society as a whole. Citizenship is no longer viewed as a “privilege”. Practical benefits flow from this status, such as the right to vote, the right to enter or remain in Canada, and the right to travel abroad with a Canadian passport. Canadian citizens also enjoy privileged access to the Federal Public Service: see Lavoie v. Canada, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 769.
[45] The distinction between “citizens” and “non-citizens” is recognized in the Charter where citizenship is a required qualification for voting rights (s. 3), mobility rights (s. 6) and minority language educational rights (s. 23). However, it may at the same time constitute an “analogous ground of discrimination” under section 15 of the Charter in other instances of legislative preference (see Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia,, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143), and any such “discrimination” must be justified under section 1 of the Charter (R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103).
[46] Current Canadian citizenship legislation contemplates that citizenship is either acquired automatically by operation of the law, or by a grant of citizenship by the Minister (naturalization). By operation of the law, citizenship can be acquired by birth in Canada (jus soli principle) or by descent where the birth occurs outside Canada if one of the natural parents of the child is a citizen (jus sanguinis principle).
[47] There is no definition of who is a “citizen” in the Charter and any statutory definition, such as the one in the current Citizenship Act, must comply with the Charter: see Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358. The modern approach is to scrutinize differential treatment according to entrenched rights and freedoms and, in the s. 15(1) context, the concept of essential human dignity and freedom: see Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; Lavoie, supra.
[48] This brings me to examine certain assumptions made by the parties in this case.
2. Assumptions made by the parties
[49] It is submitted by the Respondent that “citizenship” is a creature of statute and that it has no legal meaning apart from statute: see Solis v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 407 (F.C.A.) (QL). The Respondent concedes that the Applicant was a “British subject” and also a “Canadian national” within the meaning of the Canadian Nationals Act, S.C. 1921, c. 4, as revised in R.S.C. 1927, c. 21 (the Canadian Nationals Act) at the time of his birth.
[50] That being said, the Respondent submits that prior to the coming into force of the 1947 Citizenship Act, there was no such thing as a “Canadian citizen”. The Respondent submits that if there were any “Canadian citizens” in this country before 1947, then they were citizens only in the “Roman sense” and for the limited purpose of implementing Canadian immigration policy.
[51] The Applicant is not ready to accept the propositions put forward by the Respondent and submits that the legal concept of “Canadian citizen” was referred to and used in at least two statutes enacted by Parliament prior to 1947: the 1910 Immigration Act and the Canadian Nationals Act.
[52] This is the first time that a court examines in a thorough manner the evolution of Canadian immigration, nationality and citizenship law prior to and after the adoption of the 1947 Citizenship Act.
[53] It is recognized that legislative history material is admissible in both constitutional and non-constitutional cases to assist in the interpretation of legislation, provided it meets a threshold test of relevance and reliability. In interpretation cases the courts consult a wide variety of academic and professional publications including textbooks, monographs, studies, reports and scholarly articles. Such material may be used as evidence of an external context or as direct evidence of legislative purpose. The weight to be given to the material is established on a case by case basis: see Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 4th ed. (Markham, Ont.: Butterworths, 2002) at 471-502; Lavoie, supra at paras. 40, 57; Reference re Firearms Act, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783 at para. 17; Law, supra at para. 77; Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27 at paras. 21, 35; Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252, at paras. 48-50).
[54] In this regard, the Respondent submits that there are two consistent features in the historical documents, cases and commentary:
(a) A general avoidance of the use of the word “citizenship” when discussing nationality prior to 1947. The words “subject”, “national”, “naturalization” and their derivatives are instead used synonymously for the term “citizen” as we know it today.
(b) When the term “citizen” is used prior to 1947, it generally refers to the term as defined in the 1910 Immigration Act, and notes that the term has been defined for the specific purposes of that Act.
[55] Let us explore, for a moment, the propositions made by the Respondent and consider what “British subject”, “Canadian national” and “Canadian citizen” meant prior to 1947, and what it has come to mean today.
3. Original concept of Citizenship
[56] In its original sense, the term “citizen” referred to a member of a “free or jural society” (civitas), who possessed all the rights and privileges that could be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government. While many societies had a concept of citizenship, it was in the Greek city-states that the status was first defined and it was further refined in Rome: see William Kaplan, “Who Belongs? Changing Concepts of Citizenship and Nationality” in William Kaplan, ed., Belonging: The Meaning and Future of Canadian Citizenship (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1993) 246 at 247.
[57] The original concept of citizenship is best described by professor Kaplan, who wrote at 247:
Athens was the best known of the Greek city-states, and it was a democracy in the sense that all citizens participated in government, as electors and as officials. However, not all persons could become citizens. Women, slaves, foreigners, and resident aliens were denied this status and enjoyed only limited membership in the community.
The status of citizenship was further refined in Rome. Citizenship was more widely granted than had been the case in the Greek city-states but was still quite restrictive. The Roman Republic distinguished between civil rights, meaning equality before the law without participation in government, and political rights, or membership in the sovereign body with full political participation. Only persons who had both civil and political rights had citizenship rights, also referred to as “freedom of the city.” As the boundaries or Rome, and then the Roman Empire, expanded and grew, citizenship was extended to the conquered peoples: “It is interesting to note that initially it was citizenship as the right of membership within the City of Rome, and only subsequently did it become citizenship in the wider sense of being a member of the Empire.
(emphasis added)
[58] The concept of “citizenship” was revised during the later Middle Ages and the Renaissance to include membership in a free town or city. However, the basic distinctions between citizens and others remained. Only “citizens” could participate fully in all aspects of community life.
[59] The term “citizen” (“citoyen”) came into wide use during the French Revolution as “the leaders and supporters of the Revolutionary forces felt that this term, and its connotation in the sense of free and equal participation in the government, seemed best suited to describe how the people felt about their new situation” (see Derek Heater, Citizenship: the Civic Ideal in World History, Politics and Education (London: Longman, 1990) at 2, cited in Kaplan, supra at 248).
[60] At the same time, and for quite similar reasons, the term was adopted in the newly formed United States. The American constitution speaks of “citizens” rather than “subjects” and of “citizenship” rather than “nationality”.
[61] While “citizenship” describes a status that can be conferred, “nationality” means membership in a “nation”. The concepts of “citizenship” and “nationality” tend to be somewhat synonymous or interchangeable today, and I note that in Canada, since 1947, they have been merged into the single status of “Canadian citizen”. However, this was not always the case (see Note 4).
4. British subject status or nationality
[62] In republics, the state has come to be identified with the nation itself and the individuals belonging to the nation owe allegiance to the state. From an historical perspective, this is not true for individuals born in a country where a monarchy exists. They owe allegiance to the sovereign. This is the case in the United Kingdom (see Note 5).
[63] In common law countries, nationality has tended to precede the concept of citizenship. This is especially true in England and Canada since the English “conquest”. One can say that the exercise of any right associated with citizenship was contingent upon the acquisition of some form of “national” status.
[64] Under English common law a person became a “British subject”, as a general rule, upon birth in England (jus soli). This extended to persons born in all parts of His Majesty’s “dominions and allegiance”. In the late nineteenth century the “dominions” of the Crown included both the colonies and self-governing Dominions (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and Newfoundland). “Citizenship by birth”, if I can used this expression for lack of a better phrase to describe the relationship between the individual and the “state”, was perpetual and could not be revoked regardless of residency. By the same reasoning, “aliens”, were unable to revoke their relationship with their place of birth. Therefore, at English common law foreign-born individuals could not become British “citizens” or “nationals” through any procedure or ceremony.
[65] That being said, two procedures existed by which an “alien” could become a British subject with some of the rights of citizenship. First, “naturalization” granted all the legal rights of citizenship except political rights (e.g. holding office). Naturalization required that an act of Parliament be passed. Second, “denization”, like naturalization, allowed a person to gain the rights of citizenship other than political rights. However, denization was granted by Letters Patent, bestowed by the King as an exercise of royal prerogative. Denization was therefore an exercise of executive power, whereas naturalization was an exercise of legislative power.
[66] Later, with the expansion of the Empire, the Imperial Parliament permitted the Colonies and self-governing Dominions to enact “local” legislation dealing with the naturalization of aliens (see 6. Naturalization legislation prior to 1947, infra at para. 70).
5. Powers of Canadian Parliament
[67] As part of the British Empire and later the Commonwealth, Canada has been a part of the “British citizenry” for most of its existence (see Note 6).
[68] With Confederation, the legislative power with regard to “naturalization” passed to the Parliament of Canada, which shared its legislative power with the provinces with respect to “immigration” (s. 91(25) and s. 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 5 (the 1867 Constitution Act)). Moreover, section 91(24), purported to assign jurisdiction over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians” to the Parliament of Canada (see Note 7).
[69] That being said, in 1867, the federating provinces were still “British colonies” despite having achieved responsible government and a large measure of self-government in local affairs. The new federation also became a British “colony”, subordinate to the United Kingdom in international affairs, and subject to important imperial limitations in local affairs (see Note 8).
6. Naturalization legislation prior to 1947
[70] Prior to 1867, there were various local legislative enactments with respect to naturalization of aliens which are not necessary to relate here: see Clive Parry, Nationality and Citizenship Laws of the Commonwealth and of the Republic of Ireland (London: Stevens & Sons, 1957) vol. 1 at 431-45.
[71] In 1868, the Parliament of Canada began adopting laws dealing with naturalization that established the conditions under which an alien could be naturalized as a “British subject” (see An Act respecting Aliens and Naturalization, S.C. 1868, c. 66 (the 1868 Naturalization Act); An Act respecting Naturalization and Aliens, S.C. 1881, c. 13 (the 1881 Naturalization Act)). Such statutes were at first referred to as “local Acts” until 1914 when the Imperial Parliament removed the local restriction applicable to certificates of naturalization granted beyond the United Kingdom.
[72] In 1914, an attempt was made to develop a cooperative scheme of naturalization throughout the British Empire. Naturalization laws were more or less “imperialized” by the enactment of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 (U.K.), 4 & 5 Geo. V, c. 17 (the 1914 British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act), which allowed for “imperial” rather than merely “local” naturalization, with the proviso that it had effect in other Dominions only if they too had adopted a parallel measure. The Canadian Parliament acquiesced to this common plan by re-enacting the 1914 British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act including those parts which related to broader issues of national status rather than “naturalization”, narrowly construed: see Naturalization Act, S.C. 1914, c. 44 (the 1914 Naturalization Act) (see Note 9).
[73] The naturalization legislation broadly defined the “nationa