Mark Carney to appear in video played at Canadian citizenship ceremonies

Other PMs have attended citizenship ceremonies and delivered remarks (e.g., PMs Trudeau and Harper). Trudeau apparently had a pre-recorded message but unclear how widely used. Couldn’t find Trudeau text but Harper speech had a political aspect with respect to asylum seekers. Carney video not yet up on IRCC website. Not as fussed about this as some as long as the message is non-partisan and general welcome to Canada:

New citizens of Canada will soon see a video featuring Prime Minister Mark Carney at citizenship ceremonies, according to access-to-information records obtained Blacklock’s Reporter.

Though government guidelines permit elected officials to attend in-person citizenship ceremonies, the ceremonies are officially supposed to be non-partisan.

“The Department of Immigration confirms that Prime Minister Carney’s bilingual congratulatory video should be received by the department in the near future,” said a French-language memo, per Blacklock’s Reporter.

The Prime Minister’s Office did not respond to Blacklock’s questions yesterday regarding the video.

Source: Mark Carney to appear in video played at Canadian citizenship ceremonies

Some permanent resident applicants left in limbo by changes to Canadian citizenship law

To my recollection, this possibility never raised during parliamentary committee hearings by government officials and witnesses:

…CBC News has learned that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada quietly put permanent resident applications on hold for an unknown number of people who could now qualify for citizenship under Bill C-3. The legislation makes those who can prove they have a Canadian ancestor eligible for Canadian citizenship.

That leaves those affected in limbo — without permanent resident status and stuck in a nearly three-year processing backlog of applications for citizenship certificates.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/d6dp9/1/

…Briannah Dale, senior communications adviser for IRCC, said under the department’s policies, you can’t be both a permanent resident and Canadian citizen at the same time.

“If someone applies for proof of citizenship while also applying for permanent residence, their permanent residence application will be placed on hold while a concurrent citizenship application is assessed,” she wrote in an emailed response.

“If citizenship is confirmed, the permanent residence application will be considered withdrawn. If citizenship is not confirmed, the permanent residence application will return to its original place in the processing queue and resume processing.”

Dale said an IRCC officer can also put a permanent residence application on hold even if someone hasn’t applied for a citizenship certificate if the officer has “compelling reasons to believe an applicant may already be a citizen under Canadian law.”

Dale said due to “systems limitations” the department can’t say how many permanent residence applications it has put on hold because the applicant may also qualify for citizenship.

However, she said those who already have permanent resident status won’t lose their status while they wait for their citizenship certificate.

The wait time for those who apply today for family sponsorship of spouses outside Canada (and outside Quebec) like Pottier’s wife is 18 months. But the wait time for citizenship certificate applications is now 34 months, in part because of the surge of applications since the adoption of Bill C-3, particularly from Americans.

Between Dec. 15, 2025, when Bill C-3 went into effect and Aug. 31, IRCC has approved 7,900 applications for Canadian citizenship certificates under the new legislation. Another 22,570 people born abroad to a Canadian parent also received citizenship certificates….

Source: Some permanent resident applicants left in limbo by changes to Canadian citizenship law

Canada’s anti-immigrant sentiment softening, according to new poll

Expect trend will also show in forthcoming Focus Canada survey:

Canadians in the Atlantic region and on the Prairies are most likely to think there are too many immigrants coming to this country while British Columbians and Quebecers are least likely to see it that way, according to a new poll.

When you look at all 10 provinces, 45 per cent of Canadians polled said we have too many immigrants, 31 per cent indicated we have about the right number, and 13 per cent said we don’t have enough, according to the poll conducted earlier this month by EKOS for the Association for Canadian Studies.

“We’re still seeing the large plurality of Canadians saying there are too many immigrants,” said Jack Jedwab, the association’s president.

“But clearly relative to the previous three years, we are seeing some change in feeling around that and some loosening of concern on the part of Canadians.”

Manitoba and Saskatchewan respondents were most likely to say Canada has too many immigrants (52 per cent), followed by Atlantic Canada (50 per cent), then Alberta and Ontario (both at 46 per cent).

British Columbians were least likely to say Canada has too many immigrants (39 per cent), followed closely by Quebecers (40 per cent).

“The poll comes ahead of Mark Carney’s Liberal government announcing immigration levels for the next three years in the coming weeks before presenting a budget on Nov. 5.

British Columbians topped the list of those who said Canada has about the right number of immigrants (34 per cent), followed by Alberta and Quebec (both at 32 per cent). Those polled in Manitoba and Saskatchewan were least likely to say Canada has the right number of immigrants (26 per cent).

British Columbians were also the most likely to say Canada doesn’t have enough immigrants (18 per cent), followed by Quebec (16 per cent), Atlantic Canada (13 per cent), and Ontario (12 per cent).

Immigration concerns have declined across the board, but they’re still high in Atlantic Canada and lowest in B.C. and Quebec, according to the poll.

Quebecers were most likely to strongly agree with the need for a common set of values (42 per cent strongly agreed with that, and another 42 per cent somewhat agree).

Only 31 per cent of respondents in Manitoba and Saskatchewan strongly agreed with the need for a common set of values, while 42 per cent somewhat agreed.

“But a near equal share believes cohesion requires people accepting others with different values, according to the poll.

In all 10 provinces, 40 per cent of respondents strongly agreed with that statement, while another 39 per cent somewhat agreed.

Those who indicated Canada has too many immigrants was down 13 percentage points from a separate Leger poll conducted in March 2025. Those who say we don’t have enough was up 10 percentage points over that same period…..

Source: Canada’s anti-immigrant sentiment softening, according to new poll

Musselman: A covenant, not a grant: Canada’s citizenship process asks too little in return

Odd commentary that suggests the author doesn’t fully understand the current process and requirements. Certainly, the header “asks too little in return” is one that I share but his specific recommendations in many respects are already in place (e.g., there is already a written attestation of the oath, which is of course a binding, albeit unenforced except through abiding by Canadian laws).

And always telling, when a lawyer states changes “cost little,” that they don’t appreciate the operational details and complexities (just as is the case for policy makers occasionally with C-3 being the latest example):

Canada is changing quickly, and the strain shows. Police-reported hate crimes targeting race or ethnicity have risen for six consecutive years, hate crimes targeting religion remain well above their 2020 level, and Canadians’ trust in one another has fallen from 54 per cent in 2013 to under 44 per cent today. These problems have many causes, and naturalization policy is clearly not the primary one. The issue is not immigration itself, but whether the process by which immigrants become citizens asks enough of them, and of us, in return.

Canada’s citizenship process asks immigrants to pass a test, pay a fee, and meet residency requirements. What it does not ask is the one thing that matters most: that they recognize Canada’s constitutional order as binding, conduct themselves within it, and take part in civic life through legitimate channels. That should worry us.

Since 1995, Canada has replaced the citizenship judge — who once interviewed every applicant — with a twenty-question multiple-choice test that can be easily memorized. The oath ceremony now often happens alone on a screen. An immigrant can clear every stage of naturalization without ever being asked to demonstrate that they understand, much less accept, the constitutional order and civic responsibilities of the country they are joining.

That is a mistake, and an avoidable one. Citizenship should be treated as a covenant, not a grant — a mutual bargain, not a gift with no strings attached. Canada offers immigrants membership in one of the world’s most prosperous, stable, rights-respecting societies. In return, it is entitled to ask that they recognize the country’s constitutional order as binding, resolve disagreements through Canada’s own institutions rather than import quarrels from abroad, and take part in civic life through legitimate channels. None of that means policing what anyone believes — only how they act.

Naturalization is the only moment Canada has real leverage to secure that covenant: the one point when an immigrant is actively asking the state for something. Once the oath is sworn, the leverage is gone. Yet Canada’s process checks residency, fees, and test scores — never recognition, conduct, or participation. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has even stopped tracking how many permanent residents goon to become citizens, in favour of measures that only show whether paperwork is moving.

A COVENANT, NOT A GRANT

Canada’s citizenship process asks too little in return. Other countries offer lessons, but none are perfect. The Netherlands built a genuinely substantive citizenship test, but let it fall unfairly on its most vulnerable applicants. Germany keeps its knowledge test modest and does the real work through a signed Declaration of Loyalty to the country’s constitutional order. Britain made its test harder without making it meaningful — a UK parliamentary committee has called it a “bad pub quiz.”

Canada has taken none of these lessons to heart. Ottawa should (my comments in italics):

• Tell applicants, from their very first contact with the citizenship process, what recognition, lawful conduct, and civic participation require — not wait until the oath to explain it. The website focuses on basic eligibility requirements and citizenship process, which then lead to the more substantive issues of rights and responsibilities. Arguably, could have a short intro on the importance and general substance.

• Rewrite the outdated Discover Canada guide around Canada’s constitutional order, not trivia and heritage narratives. Kind of funny reading this as Discover Canada, the 2009 study guide which, with some controversy, dramatically increased such references compared to the earlier guide, A Look at Canada. Is important for the guide not just to be a dry legal text but to capture some of the history and geography that help newcomers understand Canada better. Not all trivia.

• Require a real recognition interview for every applicant, not just the small minority who currently trigger one. Unrealistic, given the annual numbers. The test was introduced in 1995 given the impracticalities and costs of interviewing all applicants at a time when numbers were half compared to the present.

• Restore in-person citizenship ceremonies and rewrite the oath, with a signed declaration, to name what Canada actually requires. Agree on making in-person ceremonies the default (currently about half of all ceremonies). Current wording of oath covers the basics but certainly room for improvement but requires legislation. Applicants sign a written attestation already.

• Make IRCC report to Parliament on whether permanent residents are actually choosing to become citizens — not merely on how fast their applications move. This used to exist but was meaningless as the performance standard was not xx percent within 5-9 years since landing but from any period. Data published during regular census periods which has been informative. Agree should be in annual plan, but focus needs to be on recent immigrants.

Canada naturalized more than 359,000 people in 2024–25 alone. Every one of them passed through a process that never required them to demonstrate an understanding of the responsibilities that come with the Canadian passport they now hold. That moment, once gone, cannot be recovered. The reforms proposed above cost little and could be implemented quickly. What Canada cannot afford is to keep treating citizenship as paperwork to process rather than a covenant worth keeping.

Mark Musselman is a Toronto-based entertainment lawyer and PhD candidate at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law.

Source: A covenant, not a grant: Canada’s citizenship process asks too little in return

While I was away: Citizenship articles of interest

Change in Canada’s citizenship law hitting U.S. archives

More indication of IRCC and PBO underestimating demand by third and earlier generations:

“Sitting in their archive in Lafayette, Louisiana, Barbara Dejean and Stephanie Simon first heard about a change in Canada’s citizenship rules in December, when they read an online news story.

Then the calls started coming in. 

Calls from Americans who wanted to document their Canadian ancestry to apply under the new rules for Canadian citizenship certificates.

“It started a bit earlier in January, but now we have over 450 requests waiting to be processed,” said Simon, associate archivist at the Diocese of Lafayette, whose records include those of many Acadian families.

“The same day that we mail out 40, 40 more come in the mail, so it’s not like we can make some headway on it. It’s just kind of keeping up with them.”

Dejean estimates their two-person archive has received 1,350 requests for records since Bill C-3 went into effect on Dec. 15, 2025. Turnaround time for those requests is currently 12 to 16 weeks. 

It used to be two to three days.

“They’re from all over, all over the United States where we’ve been getting requests for our records,” said Dejean. “A lot of them are no longer here. The families have branched off and moved ”

Brunner: Canada promised a new citizenship guide that better addresses reconciliation a decade ago. It still hasn’t arrived

Good comprehensive review of past and present citizenship guides, with current guide largely unchanged since introduced by former Conservative minister Kenney (over 5 Liberal ministers ago). Over “ideological” approach in terms of how to capture Canadian history, the good and the bad, as the guide needs to thread the needle between celebrating Canada while acknowledging the various missteps and injustices in our history. And yes, more civics and citizenship education required, both in the education system and in settlement:

… Citizenship guides are not neutral study aids. They teach people how to understand a country’s history, its institutions and its political community.

Given that many newcomers arrive in Canada with little exposure to truth and reconciliation, the stories a guide tells, and the silences it keeps, matter.

The fuller, more honest citizenship guide Ottawa has long promised is urgently needed. Still, a booklet alone cannot deliver reconciliation.

Citizenship education also needs support and funding at a time when Ottawa is cutting settlement budgets.

Newcomers have difficult questions about Canada, its history and our responsibilities. Answering them means moving past memorizing facts for a multiple-choice test, toward citizenship education that takes those questions seriously.

Until then, community educators will be left to bridge the gap between Canada’s stated commitment to reconciliation and the very different story Canada tells newcomers about itself.

Canada’s 2026 census participation was among highest ever, says StatCan

Looking forward to the various datasets:

Statistics Canada says the response rate for this year’s census of the population was 98.4 per cent, one of the highest ever recorded.

The data is collected every five years and the questionnaire includes age, gender, marital status and language use.

That information is used to determine electoral maps, plan social programs and determine funding for municipal and provincial governments.

…StatCan says it’s begun the work to compile the data it collected and it will release seven batches of information beginning in February 2027.

The agency says more than 88 per cent of Canadians chose to fill out the census online, more than have ever used that option before.

Source: Canada’s 2026 census participation was among highest ever, says StatCan

Proof-of-citizenship applications surge, estimated wait time is almost 3 years

So the number after less than one year is already greater than the five-year estimate by PBO and IRGC. As Kurland notes, “They dropped the ball big time:”

Both the wait times and the number of people waiting for a decision regarding their proof-of-citizenship application has surged exponentially since Bill C-3 came into effect, according to new data from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

More than 136,000 people are awaiting a decision, with estimated wait times now more than 33 months. They include people eligible for citizenship under the amended rules and those who are first-generation descendants. In the case of applications from outside Canada or the United States, the estimated wait time could take an additional three or four months.

The wait time has increased by eight months from this August, when it was estimated to be 25 months. The number of applications has also increased by 14,000.

Bill C-3, which came into effect in December 2025, amended the Citizenship Act to end the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent, meaning Canadians born outside the country can also pass their citizenship to their children who are born outside the country. It also expanded eligibility to people born before Dec. 15, 2025, if they can prove they’re directly descended from a Canadian citizen, and have verifiable documents showing that the citizenship was passed down – even if that ancestor left the country years ago.

Half of applications come from U.S.

According to data provided by the IRCC in August, more than 6,100 people have obtained proof of citizenship under these new rules since late 2025.

As of May 31, 51 per cent of all approved citizenship applications under the new eligibility criteria came from people born in the U.S., according to data provided by the IRCC.

One immigration lawyer says the new numbers are “staggering” and “far beyond the capacity of IRCC” to process in a reasonable timeframe.

Kyle Hyndman, an immigration lawyer from Victoria, B.C., told CTVNews.ca on Thursday, that a “significant” number of applications are coming from the south of the border.

“Both what’s happening in the U.S. politically – and also news coverage of the Canadian citizenship situation in the U.S. – have both spurred a lot of interest,” Hyndman said.

“That’s certainly part of the surge, and that’s put all kinds of pressure on every stage in this process,” he said.

…‘A predictable uptake’

Christine Beltempo, the current chair of the Canadian Bar Association National Immigration Law Section and a lawyer with the national law firm McCarthy Tétrault, told CTVNews.ca on Friday that she’s seeing many applications coming in from other countries besides the U.S., like Mexico.

“You’re creating additional bureaucracy for some people who actually are presumably, according to the new law, Canadian citizens,” she said, referring to people from countries like Mexico, who need a visa application to enter Canada, unless they get their citizenship certificate.

Outside of the U.S., the most approved applications are from Mexico, Bolivia, the United Kingdom and its territories, China, India, Bolivia, France, Australia and Italy, according to the IRCC’s data.

Beltempo called the surge in processing times “a predictable uptake,” following the amendment to Bill C-3, which is leading to “frustration” among applicants who were looking forward to this legislative change.

“What we’re seeing is disappointment, frustration, mixed emotions and certainly people finding it very difficult to plan their lives and their futures in Canada, without having a predictable amount of time before which they can actually get their documentation,” she said.

Beltempo added that the IRCC is facing backlogs in other departments as well, which needs to be examined by the federal government. She says it’s concerning for associations like the Canadian Bar Association, in terms of access to justice and other programs.

“I think it’s important to remind the public that this change came as a result of a court finding that the previous law was unconstitutional.”

‘When you’re Canadian, you have the right to be here’

Before Bill C-3 was amended, Canadian citizenship by descent was limited to first-generation individuals, born or adopted outside the country by a Canadian citizen. That restriction was subsequently struck down in a 2023 ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which found it unconstitutional.

Richard Kurland, an immigration lawyer and policy analyst from Vancouver, told CTVNews.ca Friday, that the sudden uptick in the number of applications and the increase in estimated wait times is a combination of the political tension between Canada and the U.S., in addition to the Bill C-3 amendment.

“They certainly drop the ball in failing to resource the citizenship people to process, resulting in three years and longer processing times,” Richard Kurland said. “When you’re Canadian, you have the right to be here.”

Kurland said despite people having a claim to Canadian citizenship, the province they enter cannot allow them access to health care, public education or employment without the paperwork from the IRCC.

“There’s no way that the (federal) government could not know that the inventories would become bloated (and) processing times would go through the ceiling,” he said.

“They dropped the ball big time.”

Meanwhile, multiple factors are to blame for an increase in the volume of applications outside of Bill C-3, an IRCC spokesperson told CTVNews.ca in a statement on Friday.

“Complex cases often require substantial documentary evidence and additional verification, which can extend timelines,” the spokesperson wrote. 

“The current estimate should be understood in that context, rather than as a direct comparison with historical figures that were calculated using different inventories or methodologies.”

Source: Proof-of-citizenship applications surge, estimated wait time is almost 3 years

He passed three extensive security checks in Canada. Now, a fourth has stalled his citizenship for 18 months

…Immigration security screening has garnered growing public attention in the last few years as the number of immigration applications skyrocketed after the pandemic, leading to an explosion of files flagged for inadmissibility and security concerns.

While critics question whether the process is rigorous enough, advocates complain that it takes too long and is holding back the lives of migrants, whether they are here for asylum, to study or work, or in the process of becoming permanent residents or citizens….

According to CSIS, the number of immigration security screening requests it receives increased from 356,200 in 2019 to a peak of 538,100 in 2024, before it dropped to 438,600 last year after Ottawa reduced immigration intakes. The border agency said its current caseload includes 69,800 applications for temporary residence, 31,300 for permanent residence and 73,400 for refugee claims.

The Immigration Department estimated that it would take 64.8 months to complete all security screenings for permanent residence and 30.3 months for temporary residence, based on output and the number of cases in the system as of the end of November.

Toronto immigration lawyer Max Berger said the stakes are high in citizenship applications because once a person becomes a citizen, it’s difficult to strip it. However, he said the screening process has been plagued by a lack of resources and transparency, causing extensive delays and leaving people in uncertainty.

He said multiple security screenings are not necessary unless new information emerges that suggests a person was involved in nefarious activities in their home country that officials weren’t aware of before….

Source: He passed three extensive security checks in Canada. Now, a fourth has stalled his citizenship for 18 months

USA: HOW THE RIGHT COULD ACTUALLY END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

No doubt the administration and its supporters/enablers will continue to try:

….Administration officials were hardly coy about their plans. “We have to keep fighting,” Vice President Vance told the Fox News host Laura Ingraham, “because we actually have an opportunity to reverse this decision.” A month later, the White House announced a second, narrower executive order purporting to restrict certain limited categories of people from birthright citizenship, such as children born to members of legally designated foreign terrorist groups.

The new order also appears largely unconstitutional, and is more a howl of frustration than a serious effort to pare back the Supreme Court’s ruling in Barbara. But it signals that MAGA’s assault on the Fourteenth Amendment is far from over. And the right already has a proven model for how to overturn a Supreme Court ruling, one more careful and systematic than a single executive order: the campaign against Roe v. Wade. The conservative movement never regarded Roe as the final word on abortion. The MAGA movement does not regard Trump v. Barbara as the final word on birthright citizenship….

Despite this history of opposition, Trump lacked any real legal foothold for his executive order—a precarious position to be in as the Supreme Court prepared to hear the case. Fortunately for Trump, a small group of right-leaning law professors busied themselves with the work of casting doubt on the question that judges in the lower courts—and, for more than 150 years, nearly every other expert—had found so clear. Some were up-front about their motivations. “My political predisposition was actually to think birthright citizenship is morally quite a complex issue and that the Trump position might be the right moral answer,” Ilan Wurman, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, explained in an interview on Moment of Truth, a podcast produced by a MAGA-aligned think tank. He co-wrote a New York Times op-ed in February 2025 and later published a law-review article. Both drew selectively from Anglo-American legal history to suggest that the words subject to the jurisdiction thereof might be read to mean “subject to America’s ‘social compact,’ ” whereby an individual gives up certain rights so that the state can guarantee others. People in the United States illegally haven’t entered into an “exchange of allegiance and protection,” Wurman argued, and therefore might not be guaranteed birthright citizenship for their children.

Scholarship proceeds through debate and contestation, but the convenient timing of this intervention and the patchiness of the historical work looked a great deal like an effort to sway the Court in Trump’s favor. Prior to Trump’s executive order, Wurman hadn’t published any academic work questioning the conventional understanding of birthright citizenship; he pressed forward with his op-ed, he said on the podcast, because he “wanted to move the Overton window.” Other scholars were appalled by his argument. Law, the CUNY professor, described the revisionist conclusions as “hogwash” that elide “mountains of scholarship on the other side.” Even fellow conservative originalists, who share Wurman’s approach to constitutional interpretation rooted in historical meaning, questioned his interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Under common law and the public understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment at the time of the amendment’s drafting, they argued, subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant “subject to the law of”—which would include just about everyone on U.S. soil. “Aliens within the territory owe obedience to the law just like a natural-born citizen does,” the originalist law professor Keith Whittington wrote in a February 2026 paper. (Asked about his methodology, Wurman responded over email, “There is no single answer to the question of when sufficient historical data has been presented to make historical claims convincing.”)

Yet the revisionist scholarship found a receptive audience among the conservative justices on the Court. During oral arguments in April, most of the justices seemed skeptical of, even hostile toward, Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s case against birthright citizenship. By the time the Court handed down its ruling at the end of June, however, only five—the three liberals, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett—found the executive order to be unconstitutional. Justice Clarence Thomas drew from what he termed a “groundswell of new scholarship” in his dissent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, dissenting in part, likewise pointed to the debate on the question to suggest that “the constitutional issue is not straightforward.” He argued that Congress would need to rewrite existing law to create exceptions to birthright citizenship for “children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”…

Source: HOW THE RIGHT COULD ACTUALLY END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Canadian Immigration Tracker – Second Quarter 2026 Update

Latest update. Compared to the levels plan, government appears to be exceeding all major targets save for Permanent Residents: