71
It was in 1947 that "Canadian citizen" replaced "British subject" as the legal description of a voting participant in this democratic society. One might think that by now the transition would be complete, the concept of our citizenship mature. It is not. It has not kept up with changes in the world around us. Canadian law on citizenship and immigration is in need of another radical revision, Tom Kent writes in his Saturday Globe essay.
He writes: Most of us are proud to belong to a nation that welcomes diverse peoples and accepts many cultures. But present law permits, even encourages, confusion of loyalties and plurality of citizenship. The sense of a Canadian identity is increasingly diluted. It need not be.
In his essay he argues that Canada wants immigrants who will in their diversity contribute to the development of that Canadianism. We do not want immigrants who dilute it by leaving their hearts elsewhere.
He argues that immigration should depend on the intent to become Canadian. He also suggests changes to tax legislation that requires every citizen, irrespective of where he or she is residing at any time, file a return of income from all sources, and then to pay the assessed Canadian tax. If the country of residence has a tax treaty with Canada, he writes, the assessment would of course reflect an appropriate allocation of tax between jurisdictions. But if it is a haven or country of uncertain tax administration, then the liability would be for the full amount of Canadian tax.
Tom Kent (Merle Robillard for The Globe and Mail)
Related Articles
What do you think? Is this going too far, or are Canadian immigration laws too lax?
Tom Kent was online to discuss his essay. His answers, appear at the bottom of this page.
Tom Kent was an immigrant to Canada in 1954 and in 1966 he was the deputy minister of Citizenship and Immigration. He was also principal assistant to prime minister Lester Pearson.
Mr. Kent is an Oxford graduate in politics and economics, and had a varied career before entering public service, that included journalism with the Guardian and the Economist in the United Kingdom and the Winnipeg Free Press.
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.
Stephen Austin from Canada writes: Tom, it seems to me that your 'become a citizen in 3 years or leave' policy would have the opposite effect to your intention. Those inclined to become citizens of convenience would do so anyway; your policy would merely push those not so inclined in the same direction. You seem to imagine that it is permanent residents, rather than those who have obtained citizenship, who are largely responsible for your 'flag of convenience' problem. How can that possibly be the case, and what evidence do you have to show that it is?
Tom Kent writes: I certainly agree that residents who aren't citizens aren't responsible for the flight of convenience problem, after all they don't have Canadian passports. I also agree that my proposal wouldn't entirely cure the problem - there will still be people who take out citizenship as a convenience rather than a love for Canada, but there will be fewer of them if they have to take the citizenship oath and pay their Canadian taxes. This is one of the many problems that won't disappear but we can make it a bit less.
Curtis Ramsauer from Toronto writes: I agree with what Tom says but we need two more things: 1. Teach children to become more patriotic. I'm always jealous about how Americans feel about their country. 2. Sever our connection with the British monarchy. We can't be a country when we have a foreign queen as head of state. [Your thoughts?]
Tom Kent writes: I don't think we can teach people to be patriotic but certainly we should encourage it by teaching children more about Canadian citizenry. About the second question, I would certainly like to abolish our connection with the monarchy, but the question is how to get sufficient agreement on a substitute.
Jim Flom from District of Kent, B.C. writes: I support the characterization of Mr. Kent's taxation position as represented in the Globe and Mail intro. As stated, though, Mr. Kent argues that immigration should depend on 'the intent to become Canadian.' Defined as what? Swearing allegiance to the Queen, her heirs and successors? Living in Canada for the rest of one's life? Figuring out how curling is scored? Is Mr. Kent arguing for a rejection of dual citizenship? Other than the taxation question, what does the intent to become Canadian really mean?
