Skip to main content

An Ontario birth certificate

The phrase "Canadians of convenience" was coined eight years ago, during an evacuation of many Canadians who had been living in Lebanon. "Birth tourism" is a special form of such a convenience, not linked to any such crisis. It enables newborns to be instant citizens of Canada, though their parents are not Canadian – "anchor babies" who could eventually sponsor their parents.

The federal Conservative government, to its credit, has made an effort to encourage in new citizens a sense of a strong connection to Canada. It has now emerged that it is considering eliminating so-called birth tourism, which tends to engender a tenuous sense of being Canadian.

To this end, jus soli, the right of citizenship arising from being born "on the soil" of Canada, would be abolished and replaced by jus sanguinis, citizenship by right of "blood," that is, by descent. Most countries similar to Canada – except the United States – have either made this change, or have applied jus sanguinis for centuries.

Story continues below advertisement

But the government is right to proceed with caution, for practical reasons. Consequently, no such change was included in the recent revisions to the Citizenship Act.

Whatever course is taken, the result should not be stateless infants.

At present, however, birth certificates are the most common proof of Canadian citizenship. They do not include any information about a newborn baby's parents' citizenship.

Hospitals are a provincial jurisdiction. That is one of the reasons why the provinces and territories have been in charge of birth certificates for a long time. The subnational governments of Canada would doubtless not be eager to spend a huge amount of money to overhaul their birth-certificate system – let alone unanimously.

Ottawa could choose to foot the bill. But if the government is to go any further, it should commission a rigorous study to discover whether so-called birth tourism is a significant phenomenon. So far, the evidence is anecdotal. The available numbers in a given year are in the low hundreds. The real numbers may be higher, but it would be premature to remake the basics of our citizenship on a hunch.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading…

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.