Was My Mother Deemed a Citizen in 1947 Under Section 5(1)(b)?

[ra2258]

After reviewing the documents and researching the Canadian National Steamship Company, it appears my grandfather was indeed in Crown service when my mother was born in 1937.

Key findings:

He served as a Steward on the Lady Hawkins (CNS vessel) during documented wartime voyages in 1940-1941

The Canadian National Steamship Company was a Crown corporation - making employees Crown servants

The Lady boats operated regular Caribbean passenger service from 1928-1952, so he was likely working this route in the 1930s when he met my grandmother in Cuba

He continued merchant marine service throughout the war, later serving on the El Lago where he was killed in October 1942

So the timeline appears to be:

1930s: Steward on Lady boats (CNS) - meets grandmother in Cuba ✓

Crown service1937: Mother born while he's employed by CNS ✓

Crown service1940-1941: Documented service on Lady Hawkins ✓

Crown service1942: Transferred to El Lago, killed in U-boat attack

I need to confirm some of this but I think it may establish he was a Crown servant throughout the relevant period for citizenship purposes. The Canadian National Steamship Company being government-owned is the key factor.

 

[armoured]

After reviewing the documents and researching the Canadian National Steamship Company, it appears my grandfather was indeed in Crown service when my mother was born in 1937.

...

The Canadian National Steamship Company was a Crown corporation - making employees Crown servants

I need to confirm some of this but I think it may establish he was a Crown servant throughout the relevant period for citizenship purposes. The Canadian National Steamship Company being government-owned is the key factor.

One caveat on this, I am not at all certain that an employee of a crown corporation is automatically a crown servant in the sense used by the citizenship act (or previous versions of citizenship statutes). For the most part at present employees of crown corporations are not necessarily deemed to be public servants for other purposes, that's limited to the ministries and some (specific) agencies.

Note the language used in the current version of the citizenship act: "employed outside Canada in or with the Canadian Armed Forces, the federal public administration or the public service of a province."

The Merchant Navy was (I understand) considered a branch of the armed forces (at least for some purposes, possibly for periods of wartime only) - but this does not automatically mean it would apply to something like the Canadian National Steamship Company (even if were service on the same ship, I should think). At that time, I think would simply be considered a government-owned company - by extension I don't think employees of any of the rail entities owned by govt at various times such as Via Rail would qualify, either, even though they are indeed Crown Corporations).

This is a very specific question that could go a dozen different ways depending on the specific status of the company itself, the type of employment contract, a whole host of historical legal and regulatory/customary issues, etc., that will likely all contradict each other. The positive aspect is it was a public entity and the employment (obviously) entailed being abroad, but I don't know if any other aspect meets the test.

I genuinely don't know. FWIW, my read of this (with some exposure to crown corporations and the like, incl some that might qualify as public service) is that this case wouldn't be considered 'federal public administration'. But repeat, I don't know if that's the right part of the statute to look at, and hence my reading somewhat superficial.

Personally I'd continue to look into the 1095 days in Canada. It's unclear how strict IRCC may be about the physical presence part, but I should hope more understanding when the period in question is 70+ years ago and a likely complete absence of border crossings by name from USA.

 

[hawk39]

So my question is: how can I confirm whether my mother was recognized as a “foundational” citizen under the 1947 Act, or as someone granted citizenship later under a current provision like section 3(1)(k)? Does the 1 January 1947 effective date on the certificate always mean section 4 of the 1947 Act was used — or could it still reflect a modern route like section 3(1)(k) being applied retroactively?

All of the current Act's sections under paragraph 3 would substitute each possible scenario of acquisition that are listed from the previous acts, so that is what they use today. For example, if someone became a citizen under any section of the 1947 Act at that time and had maintained it by not losing it under Part III, then they are a citizen under 3(1)(d) of the current Act.

I guess your mother can contact IRCC and ask if she was recognized under the 1947 Act or the 2015 Act. However if you were born before the 1977 Act and in-wedlock, then I believe it would not benefit you unless you can confirm with them that your grandfather was a Crown servant when your mother was born because even if she was recognized under the 1947 Act, then as a woman she would not have been able to pass down citizenship when you were born.

From what I understand, that date reflects citizenship by operation of law under section 5(1)(b) of the original Citizenship Act — not descent. IRCC’s Operational Bulletin 476 (2012) stated that persons who became Canadian citizens on January 1, 1947 under sections 5(1)(a) to (e) are considered to have acquired citizenship by operation of law.

I'm interested to understand how you came to this conclusion and where you got this information, because I just looked up the operational manual you listed, and [1] it is titled "Abandonment of citizenship grant applications where proof of residence has not been provided", and [2] section 5 of the 1947 Act deals with native-born and by-descent citizenship after commencement and only has subsections (a) and (b).

So if my mother wasn’t a citizen by descent, would that make me first-generation born abroad under section 3(1)(b) of the current Act?

Your mother derived her claim through her paternal link, so she is a citizen by descent, plain and simple. The only other methods are by birth in Canada or by naturalization, which for except under one special grant in the 1977 Act, required a history of permanent residency.

FYI regardless of generational count, if you were born under the 1977 Act, then you are described under 3(1)(b); if under the 1947 Act, 3(1)(g).

 

[ra2258]

All of the current Act's sections under paragraph 3 would substitute each possible scenario of acquisition that are listed from the previous acts, so that is what they use today. For example, if someone became a citizen under any section of the 1947 Act at that time and had maintained it by not losing it under Part III, then they are a citizen under 3(1)(d) of the current Act.

I guess your mother can contact IRCC and ask if she was recognized under the 1947 Act or the 2015 Act. However if you were born before the 1977 Act and in-wedlock, then I believe it would not benefit you unless you can confirm with them that your grandfather was a Crown servant when your mother was born because even if she was recognized under the 1947 Act, then as a woman she would not have been able to pass down citizenship when you were born.


I'm interested to understand how you came to this conclusion and where you got this information, because I just looked up the operational manual you listed, and [1] it is titled "Abandonment of citizenship grant applications where proof of residence has not been provided", and [2] section 5 of the 1947 Act deals with native-born and by-descent citizenship after commencement and only has subsections (a) and (b).


Your mother derived her claim through her paternal link, so she is a citizen by descent, plain and simple. The only other methods are by birth in Canada or by naturalization, which for except under one special grant in the 1977 Act, required a history of permanent residency.

FYI regardless of generational count, if you were born under the 1977 Act, then you are described under 3(1)(b); if under the 1947 Act, 3(1)(g).

I really appreciate you taking the time to respond. I think if I ignore all of this (my weird legal theory, merchant marine services, etc.) I still have a solid chance of obtaining citizenship given the current situation as my mother clearly is now considered a citizen....

On that reference - you are 100% correct. It is no longer there and has been replaced with a new (and different) one.

The old one was gathered as part of "training data" for AI. Supposedly many of those docs get removed and replaced and they sometime even use the same number? So as I can not get access to it any more - I am not able to really leverage it but wondered if someone else recalled it.

I have written IRCC about this novel theory and perhaps they will reply.

I truly appreciate the time people took to respond. The pre-1947 stuff is tricky (at least to me). THANK YOU ALL!

 

[scylla]

I really appreciate you taking the time to respond. I think if I ignore all of this (my weird legal theory, merchant marine services, etc.) I still have a solid chance of obtaining citizenship given the current situation as my mother clearly is now considered a citizen....

On that reference - you are 100% correct. It is no longer there and has been replaced with a new (and different) one.

The old one was gathered as part of "training data" for AI. Supposedly many of those docs get removed and replaced and they sometime even use the same number? So as I can not get access to it any more - I am not able to really leverage it but wondered if someone else recalled it.

I have written IRCC about this novel theory and perhaps they will reply.

I truly appreciate the time people took to respond. The pre-1947 stuff is tricky (at least to me). THANK YOU ALL!

FYI - So that you are not waiting for a response, IRCC will not advise on this matter. They will simply point you to the citizenship information already available online. If you want advice, you would need to hire an immigration lawyer. Good luck in your quest.

 

[armoured]

FYI - So that you are not waiting for a response, IRCC will not advise on this matter. They will simply point you to the citizenship information already available online. If you want advice, you would need to hire an immigration lawyer. Good luck in your quest.

I agree very much with this.

But one bit of advice - it will help to focus what you're trying to figure out, eg: is the goal for you to acquire citizenship?

If so - it will cost you less if you keep it simple.

My understanding from above is that most simple route: i) your mother is probably considered a citizen by descent; ii) you would (likely?) be eligible if she has spent the 1095 days in Canada; therefore, iii) lawyer may simply advise that you should make the best case you can for her having done so rather than pursue the more complex arguments.

That may be difficult to 'prove' but we also don't know what level/standard of proof they are requiring - govt probably can't disprove it either - so focus on what is possible to make credible case. A lawyer might be able to help you identify what can be said to make that case. (If you go into the meeting with whatever info you have, they can help you assess that).

The other arguments - whether plausible or not - are considerably more complex and borderline academic. A lawyer's fees to look into and deal with that are going to be much higher. (Unless the lawyer is kind and just tells you straight up you're wasting time on that garden path)

 

[ra2258]

I agree very much with this.

But one bit of advice - it will help to focus what you're trying to figure out, eg: is the goal for you to acquire citizenship?

If so - it will cost you less if you keep it simple.

My understanding from above is that most simple route: i) your mother is probably considered a citizen by descent; ii) you would (likely?) be eligible if she has spent the 1095 days in Canada; therefore, iii) lawyer may simply advise that you should make the best case you can for her having done so rather than pursue the more complex arguments.

That may be difficult to 'prove' but we also don't know what level/standard of proof they are requiring - govt probably can't disprove it either - so focus on what is possible to make credible case. A lawyer might be able to help you identify what can be said to make that case. (If you go into the meeting with whatever info you have, they can help you assess that).

The other arguments - whether plausible or not - are considerably more complex and borderline academic. A lawyer's fees to look into and deal with that are going to be much higher. (Unless the lawyer is kind and just tells you straight up you're wasting time on that garden path)

I think you are 100% correct. Yes - the goal is to get citizenship. I know the new bill will (probably) make this easier for me but that is an unknown. Will decide whether to submit with the 1095 days (straight submission), ask for a grant/exception or just wait. Thank you!!

 

[hawk39]

The old one was gathered as part of "training data" for AI. Supposedly many of those docs get removed and replaced and they sometime even use the same number? So as I can not get access to it any more - I am not able to really leverage it but wondered if someone else recalled it.

AI is no substitute for doing your own research; it just looks for clumps of similar words on the internet and throws them together to sound like an intelligent answer

 

[ra2258]

AI is no substitute for doing your own research; it just looks for clumps of similar words on the internet and throws them together to sound like an intelligent answer

Agree 100% and I did my own research, which was fun and I learned quite a bit, and used AI to sanity check stuff. I have no doubt that was a real artifact. But no idea if it is still in affect or valid. Thanks again for all the help and input - it is most appreciated!!

 

[scylla]

Agree 100% and I did my own research, which was fun and I learned quite a bit, and used AI to sanity check stuff. I have no doubt that was a real artifact. But no idea if it is still in affect or valid. Thanks again for all the help and input - it is most appreciated!!

I would not jump to the conclusion that what AI gave you was actually real unless you have been able to cross reference this against the actual IRCC web site. We have seen AI make up immigration rules that don't exist on more than one occasion, including providing text that really makes it look real, claiming it was from an IRCC operating manual that doesn't exist (and never existed), including making up a manual name. We even had an AI bot post made up rules to this forum repeatedly a while back. I sort of miss that bot because it came up with some stuff that was pieced together from fact but in totality was completely wrong and made it look extremely real. I had fun repeatedly asking it to provide the IRCC source for what it was posting until it would finally break down and admit that it made up the rule and then confirm it wasn't real.