‘I Am Canadian’ – Or Not: Essay Collection

Latest publication by ACS focussing on citizenship issues, based upon a conference last year. Good range of perspectives and I encourage you to check it out.

My contribution below where I continue to reinforce themes of concern to me:

Time to take citizenship seriously

The Census 2021 revelation that the naturalization rate of recent immigrants (five to nine
years) in Canada had plummeted to 45.7 percent in the 2011-15 census period compared 60.4
percent for the equivalent period from the 2016 Census provided a needed shock for the
government to take citizenship more seriously. An earlier Statistics Canada study noted a longer-
term trend of declining naturalization which reinforced that need. The analysis indicated that the
main factors influencing naturalization were family income, knowledge of official languages,
and educational attainment.

Some factors are outside the Canadian government’s purview. Whether or not an immigrant
source country permits or prohibits dual citizenship, and the extent to which it enforces a
prohibition, affects naturalization. However, recent analysis by the Institute for Canadian
Citizenship indicates the net effect on naturalization is small despite the fact that a larger number
of immigrants come from countries that do not permit dual citizenship.

The relative economic and other benefits of Canadian citizenship have changed for some
developing countries, resulting in some immigrants returning to their country of origin or
keeping their options open. However, there are a number of measures that the government could
take to strengthen the efficiency, oversight and meaningfulness of citizenship.
Operational efficiency, oversight and accountability

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the federal department responsible for these
issues, has made progress in moving to online applications and updates to manage increased
numbers and improve applicant service. Investment in AI and automation for routine
applications is a logical next step, particularly given that citizenship is straightforward compared
to the multitude of immigration pathways, and should result in faster processing. A pilot program
integrating citizenship and passport applications is a welcome initiative.

IRCC needs to publish more citizenship statistics on the Open Government Portal, as currently
the portal only has monthly statistics on countries of birth with no data on citizenship
applications (unlike for permanent and temporary residents along with international students).
Backlog (inventory) statistics need to be integrated into the portal. Moreover, regular publishing
of citizenship proofs (citizenship certificates), broken down by those submitted from within
Canada and those submitted from outside Canada, should resume given these provide a reality
check on the number of “lost Canadians” from earlier parliamentary testimony.

While broader than citizenship as it will allow for deeper analysis of health and immigration
linkages, IRCC, Statistics Canada and the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI)
should provide more precise information on birth tourism (women travelling to Canada on visitor
visas to obtain Canadian citizenship for their child) by separating out women international
students and temporary foreign workers from the overall numbers of “non-resident” births.
Moreover, MPs need to challenge those advocating the easing of citizenship requirements and
policies given the disparities between claims of the numbers of people affected and actual
numbers and the risks that additional complexity brings to citizen service.

While the number of “Lost Canadians” claimed was around 200,000, the actual number was
about 20,000. Restrictions on voting rights for Canadian expatriates were lifted in 2019 but out
of the estimated 3.6 million adult expatriates, fewer than 30,000 voted in the 2021 election, a
tripling compared to the 2015 election but still a minuscule number. Similarly, while the number
of persons subject to the first generation citizenship transmission cut-off will grow, it is likely
that the numbers of those who have a meaningful connection to Canada will be relatively small
and advocates for change have relied more on anecdotes and country comparisons.

More systemically, all MPs need to recognize that not every situation requires a specific
legislative solution, which only further complicates overall service delivery, as some are best
handled through a discretionary grant in section 5(4) of the Citizenship Act or the permanent
resident application route.

Meaningfulness
The government needs to issue a revision to Discover Canada, the citizenship study guide, first
announced in 2016 four IRCC ministers ago, and reportedly ready for ministerial sign-off for
some time. The current guide, while a significant improvement from its predecessor, is dated in
terms of approach, emphasis and examples, and is not aligned with the government’s inclusion
emphasis.

The government also needs to decide whether it intends to implement, in whole or in part, its
election platform’s commitment in 2019 and 2021 to eliminate citizenship fees, currently around
$1,400 for a family of four. The high fees contribute to lower citizenship take-up among
disadvantaged immigrants. Given that citizenship provides both private benefits such as security
and passports and public benefits such as greater inclusion and political participation, halving the
current fees would balance private and public benefits.

The government needs to abandon its proposed self-administration of the citizenship oath and
revert to in-person citizenship ceremonies for the majority of ceremonies. Moving to “citizenship
on a click” combined with virtual ceremonies largely removes the recognition of the immigration
journey and its celebration by family and friends. The government’s justifications for the
proposed change focusses on saving three months and unspecified savings given that
“participation in ceremonies would be lower than it is currently, and there would likely be fewer
ceremonies overall”. However, it is silent on the more substantive impact that being in a room
together with other new (and already) Canadians brings in terms of belonging and inclusion.

Efficiency should focus on application processing, not the ceremonial and celebratory moment.
Treating citizenship as transactional, much as a driver’s licence, undermines the fundamental
objective of reinforcing integration, a fundamental objective of the Citizenship Act since 1947.
Public commentary has been highly negative, as have the majority responses to the Gazette
notice, and a parliamentary petition was launched to oppose the change. The government should
shift the relatively small needed funds from the integration program (about one billion dollars
outside Quebec) to maintain the in-person citizenship oath and ceremonies.

Ongoing work by the Institute for Canadian Citizenship is focused on understanding the link
between dual citizenship prohibitions and Canadian naturalization, disaggregating average time
between permanent residency and becoming a citizen by gender, immigration category and place
of birth. To further understand the reasons behind declining naturalization, a detailed comparison
between Census 2021 and Census 2016 citizenship data will assess the relative impact of
income, labour force participation and education.

The government also needs to set meaningful performance standards. The current standard is
an 85-per-cent naturalization rate for all immigrants, whether recent or many years ago,
essentially meaning no accountability for the government given that until the 2021 census, it
always met this meaningless standard. A more valid approach, consistent with Statistics Canada
methodology, would be to set the standard for recent immigrants (five to nine years) rather than
all. Recent data suggests a benchmark of 75 per cent of recent immigrants would be appropriate.

Just as the government needs to strike a balance between easing the path to becoming a citizen
and operational efficiency, the government needs to ensure that citizenship reinforces the sense
of belonging and inclusion that citizenship brings. Efficiency improvements in application
processes are needed and welcome but should not be to the detriment to the one moment in
immigration journeys that celebrates and honours this achievement by new Canadians.

Prime ministers, immigration ministers and MPs all treasure these celebratory moments, as do the vast
majority of new Canadians. It is important that this in-person moment not be limited to the few
but provided to all.

Source: ‘I Am Canadian’ – Or Not: Essay Collection