What rules govern Canadian politicians holding dual citizenship when running for federal office?
Executive summary
Canada does not bar holders of foreign citizenship from running for or serving in federal office: Canadian law permits dual citizenship and the Canada Elections Act contains no blanket prohibition on members of Parliament holding another nationality [1] [2]. That legal permissiveness contrasts with other democracies such as Australia and the United States, where constitutional or statutory limits have removed or disqualified dual nationals from certain offices [2].
1. The baseline legal rule: dual citizenship is allowed in Canada
Under federal practice and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada guidance, Canadians may acquire and retain foreign citizenship — there is no official “dual citizenship” certificate but the state recognizes that a person can be a citizen of Canada and another country simultaneously [1] [3]. This framework means that holding another passport does not, by itself, strip someone of Canadian citizenship or disqualify them from exercising citizen rights such as voting or running for office where citizenship is the qualifying condition [1] [4].
2. Electoral law and eligibility for federal office: no express ban on dual nationals
The Canada Elections Act and other federal electoral rules do not include a prohibition on candidates or sitting members of Parliament simply because they hold another nationality; reporting on high-profile cases has repeatedly underscored that dual citizenship alone is not a disqualifier under Canadian federal law [2]. Major media coverage of political controversies over politicians’ foreign ties has therefore focused on honesty, transparency and political optics rather than legal ineligibility [2].
3. Where legal limits do appear in other countries — and why comparisons matter
Comparisons to Australia and the United States are often invoked in public debate: Australia’s constitution and recent High Court decisions have led to the disqualification of MPs who were dual nationals, and the U.S. Constitution imposes a “natural born” citizen requirement for the presidency — illustrating how constitutional text can create outcomes very different from Canada’s permissive stance [2]. Those contrasts are important because they shape how political opponents and media frame controversies, even when the Canadian legal landscape doesn’t mirror those foreign rules [2].
4. Practical constraints and security considerations beyond the ballot box
While dual citizenship does not generally bar candidacy, some government roles and security clearances involve separate rules and scrutiny: certain sensitive positions in federal administration, military or law-enforcement contexts may require single-citizenship status or additional vetting, and dual nationals can face higher hurdles for some clearances [5] [4]. Travel and consular complications can also arise when dual citizens visit their other country of nationality, which has practical implications for officials who travel on state business [3].
5. Politics, disclosure and the real-world effect on campaigns
The practical effect of a candidate’s foreign citizenship tends to be political rather than juridical: media narratives and opponents often frame dual nationality as an issue of transparency or perceived divided loyalty, even when the law permits the status; coverage around figures like Andrew Scheer illustrates that accusations usually target candour and trustworthiness rather than legal eligibility [2]. Sources with different perspectives — academics who stress Canada’s immigration history and multiculturalism as reasons to accept dual nationals in office, and political actors who emphasize symbolic loyalties — reveal the competing agendas behind how the issue is politicized [2] [5].
6. Limits of available reporting and where the record is thin
The reviewed reporting establishes the core legal point — permissive citizenship law and no electoral ban — and flags practical and political complications [1] [2] [5]. It does not, however, provide a comprehensive catalog of every statute, parliamentary precedent or security-policy detail that could apply to specific federal appointments; for granular questions about a particular office’s eligibility rules or the security-clearance process, official departmental guidance or legal counsel would be required [1] [4].