As I write in a column that will be in our papers tomorrow, I believe the Liberals are doing best so far when it comes to the politics around the issue of NDP leadership hopeful Thomas Mulcair’s dual citizenship. I make the argument that, as Bob Rae pointed out today, the NDP can be characterized as hypocrites on the dual citizenship issue for back in 2006, when it was about Stephane Dion’s dual citizenship, their leader at the time, Jack Layton, as well as several other NDP MPs argued that holding two passports was untenable with being the leader of a party, let alone PM.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, given the chance Tuesday to either declare for the principle that prime ministers should hold only one citizenship or declare that it doesn’t matter one bit, avoided the issue altogether, preferring instead to remind people that he’s 100 per cent Canadian.
Between Bob Rae and Stéphane Dion, the Liberals were able to deliver a rare one-two punch to both of their opponents. Good for them.
But now, as I review some of the coverage on this issue late this afternoon, I must say that I think New Democrat Nathan Cullen also comes out smelling like roses simply for stating his position before he knew how others — either within the NDP or on the Liberal and Conservative sides — might react.
Meanwhile, Paul Dewar and Peggy Nash look opportunistic and crass. And Mulcair himself, who, I will explain in a minute, should have had nothing to apologize for, now makes, what seems to me, an odd mistake by trying to suggest that the party’s icon, Jack Layton, didn’t mean what he once said about the issue.
To Cullen first.
On Monday, my TVA colleague Annie Dufour and I were working on this story. She was staying in touch with the Mulcair campaign and had been in touch with both the campaigns of Brian Topp and Romeo Saganash. At the end of the day, neither of those campaigns would have any comment on Mulcair’s dual citizenship. My assignment was to get in touch with the other campaigns, with Stéphane Dion, with the Liberals and Bob Rae; with the Conservatives and the PMO.
On Monday afternoon, we told each of those we called about the circumstances of Mulcair’s citizenship which had been provided quite candidly and openly by Mulcair’s team. (Indeed, the fact of his dual citizenship had been reported a few years ago. What was new in our report was that he intended to keep his dual citizenship should he win the leadership.)
Cullen’s camp was the first to respond and, as it would turn out, the only candidate who was prepared to say anything about it. Here’s what Nathan said:
“I think it’s fine … We as a country allow people with dual citizenship to serve in our army and to sit on our benches as judges. And we don’t question their loyalty. I guess that’s what it comes down to, right? It’s a question of is loyalty impacted? Is someone who runs for office or serves in the military or is on the judiciary, do we question their loyalty if they have dual citizenship? I don’t. I know Tom well. And I trust his belief and conviction. Anybody who stood up as strong as he did in defence of Canada in Quebec earns strong points from me personally.”
Then, and I reminded Cullen [you can listen to our exchange on this here] that Layton said: “I would prefer that the leader of a party hold only Canadian citizenship…”. This was the quote that we ran in the story in Tuesday’s papers. Cullen’s response: “I’m me and Jack was Jack. We agreed on almost everything. I think on this one we disagreed. Just different views on the world. Perhaps it’s a generational thing. My generation coming up, we’re global citizens. As a young politician getting into office, it wasn’t a problem for me because many of my friends work abroad and hold different citizenships it didn’t matter for me. As long as they prove themselves in action, that’s what I’m looking for. Are you a proud Canadian and do you stand behind the flag? That’s all I’ve ever seen from Tom.”
Now that’s Cullen. What did the other campaigns say when we contacted them on Monday?
All of them declined to comment save for Niki Ashton’s campaign. We were unable to reach anyone with Ashton’s campaign.
We asked the PMO about it. PMO types deferred to the Conservative Party spokesperson who declined to comment. We asked the Liberal Party spokesperson and she referred us to Rae’s office. Rae’s spokesperson said Liberals had no problem with the dual citizenship. Dion got back to us too explaining that he supported Mulcair.
And so, as TVA and Sun News Network reported at 1800 Monday and Sun Media reported, in Tuesday’s papers:
And yet, none of Mulcair’s opponents – either from other parties or within his own party – were prepared Monday to say they agreed with Layton.
The Liberals supported Mulcair’s view as did leadership rival Nathan Cullen.
The Conservatives and every other leadership rival except for Niki Ashton refused to comment. Ashton could not be reached.
That was Monday. On Tuesday, Peggy Nash and Paul Dewar are now telling reporters they too back Mulcair. The cynic in me has me thinking that Nash and Dewar waited through the news cycle so they could hold their fingers up to the wind to see which way it was blowing.
“This is a non-issue,” Dewar told PostMedia news on Tuesday. “Tom is as Canadian as the rest of us. End of story.”
On Monday, before the story had been published or broadcast, Dewar had no comment.
The Postmedia report continues:
Nash said politicians should be asked to renounce their dual citizenship only if it somehow “compromises their capacity to serve the interests of Canadians.”
She said she does not believe Mulcair should automatically give his up and noted any decision to do so if he’s elected leader should be made by him, in conjunction with caucus.
An interesting bit of nuance from Nash but again, when we called Monday, comments were declined.
Nash’s people tell me Tuesday that she was too busy Monday to properly consider the issue and provide a response. (Cullen, for the record, was interrupted from French lessons he was taking in St. Jean, Que. at the time). Dewar’s people say that on Monday they didn’t want to distract from their “message of the day” about Dewar’s “Next 70” push.
And then there’s Mulcair himself. I’m with Cullen: Mulcair has fought for Canada in Quebec and for that I don’t see how anyone would question his loyalty. But I’m not so naive to think that there are many Canadians – indeed, some caucus colleagues named Pat Martin and Peter Stoffer along with former MP Tony Martin (who is backing Paul Dewar, I might add) — who have a great deal of trouble wrapping their head around the idea that someone who holds a foreign passport could get the keys one day to 24 Sussex. So Mulcair, it seems to me, does have to convince those folks that this is not a big deal. (And remember: John Turner was prime minister and no one seemed to care that he held Canadian and British citizenship.)
Mulcair on Monday did not back away one bit from the issue, with his spokesperson, saying in an e-mail to TVA’s Dufour:
“Mr. Mulcair is very proud to share the nationality of his wife, who shares his. He sees no conflict with his Canadian citizenship or duties. Dual citizenship is a reality for many Canadians who are proud of their origins and a source of enrichment for our diverse society.”
On Tuesday, in an interview with Joan Bryden of the Canadian Press, Mulcair gave a spirited defence of the issue and used the opportunity to get in a few digs at Harper. But then he told Bryden:
“Jack and I talked about it straight up and he told me that literally in so many words … He said, ‘That’s not the answer I should have given.'”
Really? Layton told Mulcair that Layton was wrong? That seems a bit too convenient to have this come out now. Even if that was the case, why wouldn’t Mulcair do what Cullen did and simply say this was one of the few things that he disagreed with Jack about? (We have asked Mulcair’s campaign if there is any third-party or independent corroboration that Layton subsequently believed his position on the dual citizenship issue was incorrect.)
So, despite having nothing to apologize for (in my view and, apparently, in Mulcair’s view), Mulcair makes it seem as if Layton actually had something to apologize for. And by implication, Pat Martin and Peter Stoffer also need to do a little re-thinking of the issue.
In any event, at the end of the day: The Liberals and Nathan Cullen have been consistent and have championed the multiculturalist values they think are important. Mulcair has done so, too, but he seems to have picked a needless fight with Layton’s memory. Nash and Mulcair look like opportunists. And Topp, Saganash, Singh, the prime minister, and the Conservatives seem simply afraid to wade into an issue that Canadians seem to have some strong feelings about.
I generally disagree with your take on this.
1. On the PM’s & the Conservatives’ reaction: they rightly declined to comment, but when pressed by the media, the PM responded it was an individual decision — Mulcair’s — to make, i.e. whether to give up his French nationality or not. Perhaps his mistake was in talking about himself, which of course media types seized on. Had he not said how he himself “feels” he would again have been termed as a cold fish, as not being passionate enough about LOVING Canada. Wasn’t that made an issue by the media in the 2004 (?) election campaign?
2. In Dion’s case, the fact of his French citizenship should not have been raised as an issue, either by conservatives or others, because that nationality was conferred on him because of his mother’s citizenship. I may be wrong, but Dion did not actively decide to become a French citizen, whereas Mulcair did. I’m not calling into question Mulcair’s loyalty to Canada, I’m simply trying to point out the differences between the two.
3. There may be nothing wrong with dual citizenship for the average Jane or Joe, but a perception of divided loyalties can be a real drawback for a PM engaged in trade or other talks with a foreign country. So, IMO, anyone aspiring to lead a country had better hold only that country’s nationality.
BTW, if an average person like me, with no ambitions to reside at 24 Sussex, can be asked, as I was back in the early 80s when I was being interviewed for my Canadian citizenship, which side I would choose were my country of origin and Canada involved in a conflict … well, would it not be even more important for the PM to hold only one citizenship? Didn’t Michaëlle Jean understand that very well?
4. In the case of John Turner, it was not quite the same thing, because the ties between Canada & Britain were (are ?) stronger than with France.
5. And anyway, this entire kerfuffle may be a passionate item for discussion, but if blogger The Phantom Observer http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=12564 has it right, “a French citizen cannot work for the public service of another nation (as in military service, a foreign agency, or an international organization on behalf of a nation other than France), otherwise his or her citizenship [is] stripped from them from 15 days to 2 months after a “cease and desist” order was issued.”
So, Mr. Mulcair may find himself stripped of his citizenship … although, wouldn’t that have happened already in both Dion’s and his case, serving as they do in Parliament?
6. Finally … why the big surprise about politicians responding in a political manner? Pointing fingers at the other guy is their stock-in-trade and the media loves it because it gives them something to talk about. And commenters love to put in their two cents’ worth. So everybody should be happy.
Of course if a prospective Conservative leader were a dual US national one would have to cover one’s ears to try and hold out the howling from other parties and the media.
Mark
Ottawa
I’m disappointed to see that my earlier comment seems to have been censored. People need to know about Mulcair’s history of undermining the federalist cause from the inside. His underhanded opposition to the Clarity Act is shameful and unacceptable – Canadians have a right to know about it, and need to understand exactly what it means.