Globe editorial: There can’t be two types of Canadian citizen [C-3 citizenship by descent]
2025/11/04 2 Comments
Very good Globe editorial assessing Conservative and Bloc amendments to C-3 and correctly distinguishing between the sound amendments of having a time limit of five-years to meet the residency requirement of 1,095 days and the requirement to have annual reporting on the number of persons claiming citizenship under the Bill’s provisions and the less sound amendments to require language and knowledge assessment and criminality/security checks that apply to new citizens, not those entitled to citizenship.
The Liberals and NDP removed the amendments at third reading. We will now see how the Senate deals with the Bill shortly, and whether it passes the original bill or provides some sober second thought and reinstates these two amendments:
…Last month, the Conservatives, supported by the Bloc, added an amendment in committee to change the requirement that in order to pass on citizenship, a foreign-born Canadian needs to spend 1,095 cumulative days in Canada before the child is born or adopted. The Conservative change would require the parent to spend 1,095 days in Canada within a five-year period. This revision makes sense, as it means these individuals have truly lived here, rather than just spent a few weeks at their grandparents’ cottage each summer. It demonstrates a more meaningful connection with Canada, and administratively, it will be easier to prove.
The Conservative amendments would also require a report to Parliament annually on how many new citizens the bill creates. This is a sensible requirement.
The problems lie with the Conservatives’ addition of an English or French language test, a security screening for criminal activity, and a citizenship test demonstrating knowledge of Canadian history. These requirements are similar to those needed by immigrants applying for citizenship, so it sounds logical – but it confuses the issue.
Canadians by descent get their citizenship at birth based on their parents’ status. Presumably, under the Conservative rules, if these people applied as adults for citizenship certificates or passports and failed the tests, they could be stripped of their citizenship. Uyen Hoang, director-general of the citizenship branch at the Immigration Department, has warned that the tests would be “impossible to operationalize.” …
About Andrew
Multicultural Meanderings 
This shows something fascinating about the current Parliament. Since the Liberals do not have a majority, they do not have a majority on committees. And the NDP does not sit on committees since they do not have official party status. But if the NDP agrees with the Liberals that certain amendments passed at committee are not in the interest of the cohesiveness of the bill, they can reverse those amendments at report stage.
If the Liberals had 10 more (or 10 fewer) seats, this would not be relevant.
agree. will be interesting to see if the Senate provides some sober second thought with respect to residency and data amendments. telling that even the innocuous but needed annual data clause rejected, particularly given how poorly the Minister and officials responded to data questions.