A very difficult question. The law has been on the books for a while so I don't feel it is reasonable to expect the government to snap their fingers and make it all go away. And, as much as I despise Harper and his ilk, one cannot place the blame on his government- these laws predate him. I do think that eventually, they will do the right thing, especially when it comes to children of war veterans. This is not the first time that Canadian law has screwed veterans, however. My grandfather was involved with the Soldier Settlers Association of Canada in the struggle after WWI to see that western soldiers who were farmers got land to restart their lives and the word "struggle" does not adequately describe what some of these vets went through. (See reference 1 below.) At least in these citizenship cases it seems to be more a matter of this happening out of ignorance and outdated laws than being actively screwed by one's own government as were the aforementioned WWI vets.
The fact of the matter is that many countries have similar laws regarding citizenship, and these laws are fluid and changeable at any time. I am a dual citizen of the US (by naturalization) and Canada (by birth). The lawyer in my naturalization process in the US gave us many examples of similar laws all over the world where people were denied citizenship in their country of birth or even left stateless without them even knowing. All of these laws were enacted as a means of protecting a country from having to give citizenship to those they felt they need not offer that privilege to. Some even found they had citizenship they didn't know they had because of a parent's, or even a grandparent's, country of birth- when going to that country they were pressed into military service to fulfil their "obligation" as a citizen of that country. Now, whether those laws were pursued and passed maliciously or with the best of intentions, who knows? But they are definitely not new.
And let's not forget the furore last year over evacuating Canadian citizens out of the Middle East. Many people felt that some of these citizens were using Canada like "a flag of convenience." At the time most of the rhetoric revolved around non-white citizens, some of whom lived in Canada for a very short time and who appeared to have no real ties to Canada or any intention of every residing here again. Some of them were born in Canada yet it was very easy for people to scream blue murder over how these immigrant-citizens were "abusing" their rights as citizens. But just how specifically were they abusing those rights? How does a Muslim child born in Canada differ from a child born out of wedlock to a Canadian soldier in wartime in another country? Which of these two has a stronger case for citizenship? What "makes" one a citizen?
Is citizenship a passive thing that one just expects to have without any responsibilities or is it an active and engaging process whereby the citizen has responsibilities? I believe it is the latter. Citizens have responsibilities. The most basic of those is to take an active role in their government to the extent they can, even if all that means is showing up to vote. I cannot tell you how frustrating it was for me living in the US to see that so few of my educated colleagues (nurses and physicians) had never even voted in a single election, yet I who paid taxes, who was forced to contribute (by law) to Social Security and other services for which I, as a non-citizen, was not entitled to ever apply for, could not vote. (Talk about taxation without representation!) I did not seek US citizenship because I feel any special affinity for the US, nor did I feel less Canadian for having done so. I sought citizenship there so that I could participate and have a voice in the country in which I chose to live. I have an obligation to the US as a citizen. I am required to file tax returns every year for the rest of my life (even though I now reside in Canada), unless I chose to renounce my citizenship to a US government representative. I am required to use a US passport every time I enter and leave the US. I am eligible to vote in US elections and I intend to do so in every single one for which I am eligible. However, it is up to me to know which elections I can vote in and to obtain the proper ballots in order to do so. I will fufil what obligations I have as a US citizen but I know that as such it is my responsibility to keep myself informed as to exactly what those responsibilities are.
Anyone whose children were born in a country other than the one/ones of their parent's citizenship should have at least a clue that there may be citizenship issues that should be investigated. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Please understand that I am not saying that those affected should have known exactly what was happening, as some of the regulations seem very arbitrary, and at the time laws were passed may have not been widely reported. Nevertheless, these individuals (or perhaps more correctly, their parents, who were generally adults at the time of the changes in citizenship laws) should have had an idea that there could be problems. Having said that, I find it very bizarre that the Canadian Armed Forces does not inform soldiers and their families serving in other countries of the issues surrounding citizenship when a child is born to a Canadians living in another country. (For current info on citizenship and these issues, see Citizenship and Immigration Canada's website- http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/index.html.)
As part of my "naturalization" as a US citizen, I was asked by my lawyer whether I would surrender my Canadian passport to a US Immigration official if asked to do so. When I hesitated, he reminded me that since I was born in Canada, I could replace my Canadian passport at any time. Officially, the US does not recognize dual citizenship, and this is so with many countries. As part of my US citizenship oath, I had to "renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen." Very scary sounding language, no? But what does it really mean? Under current US law (and I stress "current"- remember these laws change all the time), it means nothing. "The US does not require a new citizen to take any formal steps to renounce his old citizenship before officials of the "old country"; and when the other country continues to claim a naturalized US citizen as one of its own, current US policy recognizes that such a person may have to use a passport from the other country in order to visit there, and such an action does not put the person's US citizenship in jeopardy." (See reference 2 below.) In some countries, if you write a letter to the government agency responsible for citizenship, or even go in person to that agency, and renounce your citizenship they do not have to recognize your renunciatory statement- some countries simply have no provision in law for someone to renounce their citizenship. When you have "dual" citizenship status, the countries involved may have very different ideas of what that means, and you need to be aware of this.
And just to add to the issue, how about this story from CBC's website today? (See reference 3 below.) A Canadian aboriginal, Kevin Brass, feels he should be able to use his certificate of Indian status card to make border crossings into the US because the 1795 Jay Treaty of the US gave aboriginal peoples dual citizenship. Dual citizenship and the use of a status card are really two separate issues. The Canadian government can, and, it appears is, pursuing use of a status card that would meet US government approval for use in border crossings between the US and Canada. But the US doesn't recognize "dual" citizenship, so if you claim to be an American citizen you better apply for your US passport now and prepare to do your US tax return every year, Mr. Brass.
Let's hope that the Canadian government does the right thing for those affected as well as taking a good, long look at the laws affecting Canadian citizenship. In the meantime, I hope that we will engage in a vigorous debate over what it really means to be a citizen.