It is outrageous that Stéphane Dion, of all people, should have his patriotism questioned. Mr. Dion has done as much to defend the integrity of Canada as any other politician of his generation and has endured a campaign of vilification and fierce personal attacks for his trouble. It is hard to imagine anyone who has thought more about the meaning of Canadian citizenship, or has better exemplified it. Yet because Mr. Dion has French citizenship, acquired at birth through his mother, his political opponents are making hay over this implied act of disloyalty.
Their attacks are aimed not just at Mr. Dion, of course, or at the great democracy and co-founding nation of Canada to which he maintains a bond, but at the millions of Canadians who also have other citizenships. They attack, then, a long-standing and noble Canadian principle that rejects the medieval mindset of divided loyalties and accepts that in an ever more globalized economy and culture, such retained links serve the interests not only of individuals but of the country. Canada is not alone in this. The global trend is toward dual citizenship. It is now permitted in some form in at least 150 countries. Even the United States, which retains its comically archaic prohibition against non-native-born citizens becoming president, allows for dual citizenship.
Yet even as they pile on Mr. Dion, his critics do not want to risk the political fallout of opposing dual citizenship generally. Instead, they want Canada to follow the U.S. model and apply a higher standard of "loyalty" only to the top elected office in the country. For example, NDP Leader Jack Layton thinks it is fine for Canadians to hold dual citizenships, but he would exempt "a leader of a party" who, he says, should "hold only Canadian citizenship."
Under Mr. Layton's discriminatory rules, dual citizens could occupy the office of governor-general and commander-in-chief, serve as a justice of the Supreme Court, in the federal cabinet, as a provincial premier, as chief of the defence staff, as RCMP commissioner or as director of CSIS - but they could not be leader of the NDP. If critics lack the courage to demand an outright abolition of dual citizenships, there are better ways for Canada to discriminate, if discrimination is what Canadians desire. For example, all members of the Queen's Privy Council (into which all federal cabinet ministers are sworn) could be forced to renounce foreign citizenships, thereby insuring against conflicted loyalty. But there is something strangely old-fashioned about such a requirement, and, as history shows, acts of treachery are not confined to foreign nationals.
Mr. Dion said on Thursday that he would be sad to give up his French citizenship for highly personal reasons. "It's my mother who gave that to me. And like all sons, I love my mother and I love what she gave to me." However, he said he would do so as an act of political expediency, if required - acknowledging that he is living in the political realm. In the end, sadly, he will have to set aside the principle and weigh the damage that this inconsequential and symbolic matter could do to him. But whichever way he decides, there should be no suggestion that he is not, to the bone, a Canadian patriot.