us with the US.
The PM here is head of government -- but s/he is essentially just an MP. I'd hazard a guess that there are at least several MPs who are dual citizens.
Head of government and head of state (or vice-head of state, the GG) are quite different things. The head of government, in our system, is just the
primus inter pares -- just one of us, and one of the bums on the benches in the House and around the Cabinet table.
Here we are:
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/primeministers/index-e.htmlThe status of the prime minister has been described as primus inter pares: Latin for "first among equals." This concept defines not only the prime minister's relationship with Cabinet, but also, in a sense, his or her relationship with the public in our modern democratic society.
The PM isn't actually elected to that position, and is chosen for the position not by the voters, but by his/her party, with the agreement of the head of state/vice-head of state. It's just a transitory position, and it doesn't vest any special powers in the person constitutionally -- just whatever powers are assigned by legislation.
It is, I'd agree, a bit much for a head of state to be a dual citizen, just symbolically speaking, although I might be of two minds. In Ms. Jean's case, she acquired her other citizenship not by birth, but by marriage. (What did happen to her Haitian citizenship, btw?) It's not quite the inherent part of her personal identity that citizenship acquired by birth is, and I might think different in that case.
Actually, of course, it's of less real significance for the GG to have dual citizenship, since s/he has no power anyhow, so it's hardly likely to matter in the event that s/he turns out to have divided loyalties. Symbolically undesirable, but anything s/he did as a result would be no different from anything else s/he might try to do contrary to the wishes of the elected element of the government. Unacceptable in both cases.
In the case of dual citizenship by birth, I can't imagine why loyalties would be thought to be any more divided than for someone who had dual citizenship by birth and renounced the spare one. His/her ties to the other country, whatever they might be, aren't really likely to be severed by that formality, or to be stronger with the actual citizenship than without.
From what I've heard Dion say, being asked to give up the citizenship transmitted by his mother would feel kind of like being asked to give up one's surname. It's a personal thing, a heritage. Oh, yeah, it's probably not entirely sentimental; having another citizenship can be practically useful too, but so can having an inherited fortune. I find that more objectionable.
I voted "I don't care", btw. The issue is interesting in the abstract, but boring, and raised for blatantly partisan reasons only, in this particular instance. Just like how the opposition to naturalized US citizens being eligible for the presidency there is so often based solely on rejection of Arnold Schwarzenegger. I dislike both Liberal party leaders and Arnold Schwarzenegger, but I'm not going to base opinions about public policy issues on that basis.