Bill C-3: An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), same as previous C-71

2025/06/06 Leave a comment

Appears unchanged from the former C-71, with the same failings. See my earlier Bill C-71 opens up a possible never-ending chain of citizenship:

Canada’s Citizenship Act contains a first-generation limit to citizenship by descent for individuals born abroad, which generally means that a Canadian citizen parent can only pass on citizenship to a child born outside Canada if the parent was either born or naturalized in Canada before the birth of the child. Canadians born or naturalized in Canada before adopting a child abroad can apply for a direct grant of citizenship for the adopted child.

As a result of the first-generation limit, in general, Canadian citizens who were born outside Canada and obtained their citizenship through descent cannot pass on citizenship to their child born outside Canada, and cannot apply for a direct grant of citizenship for a child adopted outside Canada.

On December 19, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that key provisions of the first-generation limit for those born abroad are unconstitutional. The Government of Canada did not appeal the ruling because we agree that the current law has unacceptable consequences for Canadians whose children were born outside the country.

The government is introducing legislation to make the citizenship process as fair and transparent as possible. Bill C-3 would 

  • automatically remedy the status of any person who would be a citizen today were it not for the first-generation limit or certain outdated provisions of former citizenship legislation
  • establish a new framework for citizenship by descent going forward that would allow for access to citizenship beyond the first generation based on a Canadian parent’s substantial connection to Canada

An interim measure will continue to be available for those affected by the first-generation limit while both Houses of Parliament consider amendments to the Citizenship Act. More information about the interim measure is available on IRCC’s web site.

Substantial connection test

Bill C-3 would allow a Canadian parent born abroad who has a substantial connection to Canada to pass on citizenship to their child born abroad beyond the first generation. It would also provide them with access to the direct grant of citizenship for their child adopted abroad beyond the first generation.

To demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada, a Canadian parent who was born abroad would need to have a cumulative 1,095 days (i.e., three years) of physical presence in Canada before the birth or adoption of the child.

Lost Canadians

The term “Lost Canadians” has generally been used to describe those who lost or never acquired citizenship due to certain outdated provisions of former citizenship legislation.

Most cases were remedied by changes to the law in 2009 and 2015. These changes allowed people to gain Canadian citizenship or get back the citizenship they lost. Despite this, additional amendments are needed to include other categories of “Lost Canadians” and their descendants who did not benefit from the 2009 and 2015 changes.

Bill C-3 will restore citizenship to remaining “Lost Canadians,” their descendants and anyone who was born abroad to a Canadian parent in the second or subsequent generations before the legislation comes into force. This includes people who lost their citizenship as a result of requirements under the former section 8 of the Citizenship Act.

Source: Bill C-3: An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)

Filed under C-3, C-71, Citizenship

‘Lost Canadians’ legislation delayed once again

2025/03/15 Leave a comment

Really have to wonder about Justice Akbarali given only a month or so extension when Parliament prorogued and a likely imminent election call. Her seeing “no evidence” flies in the face of Bill C-71 that died because of prorogation and could quickly be revived, ideally with the residency requirement needing to be met within the same five-year period as for permanent residents:

A court has granted another reprieve for the federal government to make the country’s citizenship law Charter-compliant so children born abroad to Canadian citizens won’t be discriminated against under the current second-generation cut-off rule.

On Thursday, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice gave Ottawa until April 25 to pass legislation that grants citizenship to the so-called “lost Canadians,” who are denied automatic citizenship because their parents also happened to be born abroad.

It was a fourth extension to a court-mandated deadline — most recently set for March 19 — since Justice Jasmine Akbarali ruled in late 2023 the law unconstitutional and initially gave Ottawa six months to fix it. The Liberal government introduced Bill C-71, which died when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suspended Parliament in January.

Earlier on Thursday, the government had sought a further 12-month extension, arguing it intended to continue and expand the interim measures in place right now “to mimic, to the extent possible, the framework established in the remedial legislation” introduced in that bill.

But Akbarali said that wasn’t good enough.

“I have nothing in the evidence on this motion other than broad, aspirational statements from the respondent about what it intends to do to mitigate the impact of the unconstitutional legislation,” the judge wrote in a three-page decision.

“There is no evidence of what policy will be adopted to implement its intention. There is no evidence about how any such policy will be communicated to people affected by the unconstitutional legislation.

“There is nothing to allow me to evaluate how effective the expanded interim measures will be in attenuating the impact of the ongoing rights violations that the respondent proposes.”

Instead, Akbarali ordered the government to file additional evidence of its “expanded interim measures” by April 2 and any further legal argument by April 4. The parties will reconvene on April 11.

“I am prepared to grant the respondent some additional time to adduce the necessary evidence and place it before the court, so that I am able to properly consider all relevant factors in determining whether a further suspension ought to be granted, and if so, its length,” she said in her ruling….

Source: ‘Lost Canadians’ legislation delayed once again

Filed under C-71, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with

Halt of ‘Lost Canadians’ bill could mean citizenship for thousands born to parents with no ties to Canada

2025/01/22 Leave a comment

The current government needs to seek an extension (and allow enough time for a new government to pass needed legislation) and Judge Akbarali needs to acknowledge the political reality behind an extension and thus not enable such a vacuum.

The expected Conservative government should reintroduce the C-71 residency test approach but, crucially, require the residency be met within five years:

Ottawa’s failure to pass a bill granting citizenship to Lost Canadians – children born abroad to foreign-born Canadians – could lead to thousands of people whose parents have never been here automatically qualifying as citizens.

Bill C-71 was one of 26 pieces of legislation stopped in its tracks this month by the proroguing of Parliament.

It was introduced by the federal government last year after an Ontario court ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny citizenship to children born in another country to Canadians also born outside Canada.

The bill is meant to reverse a change by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2009 that stripped children of a Canadian parent born outside Canada of their automatic right to citizenship.

But now experts warn that the figure could be much higher. If the bill dies, thousands more children of Canadians born abroad, to those who have never been to Canada, would qualify for citizenship when the court ruling comes into effect in March, without added restrictions on who can be a citizen.

As well as restoring citizenship rights, Bill C-71 also limits who can pass on citizenship to ensure that Canadians born abroad, who have spent their entire lives outside Canada, would not be able to automatically confer the right to a Canadian passport onto their children. They would have to show, under the bill, that they were physically in Canada for at least 1,095 days (the equivalent of three years cumulatively) before their child’s birth.

Lawyer Sujit Choudhry, head of Hāki Chambers, who successfully brought the court challenge on behalf of his Lost Canadian clients, said Bill C-71 would have not only ended the second-generation cutoff but would have brought in “a substantial connection test.“

NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan said the death of the legislation, which she said was now likely, would mean that there are no safeguards requiring links to Canada….

Source: Halt of ‘Lost Canadians’ bill could mean citizenship for thousands born to parents with no ties to Canada

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with ,

‘An ordeal that doesn’t end’: Lost Canadians’ citizenship at risk with Parliament suspended

2025/01/14 Leave a comment

More on C-71 and impact of prorogation:

Shortly after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suspended Parliament on Monday, Carol Sutherland-Brown’s phone started ringing.

The calls were coming from other people whose families have been caught up in the longstanding “lost Canadians” fiasco and are concerned about the fate of the highly anticipated citizenship reforms proposed in Bill C-71.

The Ottawa grandmother and others have been fighting to reclaim the citizenship rights taken away from their families under Canada’s current second-generation cut-off rule, which denies automatic citizenship to children born abroad because their parents also happened to be born overseas.

More than a year ago, an Ontario court found the law unconstitutional and gave the federal government six months to change it to make it Charter-compliant. The Liberal government introduced Bill C-71 to fix the problem, but the deadline has already been extended three times, to March 19.

This legislation would automatically confer Canadian citizenship on people born abroad before the changes are enacted to a Canadian parent who was also born abroad. Anyone born outside the country subsequently would need to prove their foreign-born Canadian parent had a “substantial connection” with Canada by meeting a residency requirement.

With the prorogation of Parliament until March 24, the bill has now died on the order paper, and a new one would have to be tabled when the House returns. It would be subject to the legislative process from scratch again.

The lost Canadians’ families fear that if a confidence vote follows, as expected, it will topple the Liberals and usher in a Conservative government. It was a Conservative government that brought in the second-generation citizenship cut-off in 2009 to begin with.

“This has been an ordeal for me and for the other families, an ordeal that doesn’t end,” said Sutherland-Brown. Her daughter was born in Saudi Arabia, and two grandchildren were born in the U.K. As a result, the grandchildren lost their Canadian citizenship rights by descent. “We don’t know what a new government will do.”

Lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who represented lost Canadians in the successful court challenge, said the government has two options: to go before the court for another extension or let the citizenship law be declared unconstitutional.

However, both are problematic.

While there have been similar precedents where the government was granted extensions to comply with court orders, he said the requests were made because Parliament was dissolved and an election was called, and not due to prorogation.

“The question in March will be whether this is the time for this to come to an end , or whether, given the unique political circumstances, some more time should be given,” said Choudhry. “What will the government say in court? Well, they’d say a dissolution is imminent, but it hasn’t happened yet.” 

If Ottawa lets the deadline lapse and the two-generation cut-off is thus voided, affected lost Canadians could just come reclaim their citizenship. If the court cuts the government some slack and grants another extension in light of the circumstances, the uncertainty will continue.

“During that extension period, we could very well be in an election, in which case, no bills could be passed,” said MP Jenny Kwan, immigration critic of the opposition NDP, and a staunch supporter of the bill.

“After the election, whoever forms government would have to take further actions to be compliant with the court decision. We have to remember that it was the Conservatives who brought in this unconstitutional provision 15 years ago.”

In 2009, the then-Conservative government changed the citizenship law and imposed the second-generation cut-off on Canadians born abroad, after Ottawa had faced a massive effort to evacuate 15,000 Lebanese Canadians stranded in Beirut during Israel’s month-long war against Hezbollah in 2006.

The $85-million price tag of the evacuation effort sparked a debate over “Canadians of convenience.” The government abolished the existing “substantial connection” regime and adopted a blanket rule that denies the first generation born abroad the right to pass on citizenship by descent outside Canada to the second generation born abroad. 

Tunisian-born Majda Dabaghi, whose two children were born in France and hence can’t be Canadian citizens by descent, is concerned about a Conservative return to power given the party’s efforts to block C-71 and a similar bill previously. (The Conservative party didn’t respond to a request for comment.)

The cut-off rule “was a racist response to the evacuation of dual nationals out of Lebanon,” said Dabaghi, who has continued to vote in Canadian elections after she left Canada in 2007 for a job in international law in the U.K. 

“They have done everything humanly possible to filibuster the passing of the legislation, both in the form of Bill C-71 and earlier in the form of Bill S-245. They have put their own politics and political gamesmanship above sound policy, people’s lives and our Constitution.”

Calling Bill C-71 “a crucial piece of legislation,” Immigration Minister Marc Miller also blamed the Conservatives for stalling it. While his office would not say if the government will request that the court grant another extension, it said “Minister Miller is confident that a Liberal government would reintroduce this important bill to the House once resumed.”

Although Christina Matula’s two children — born in England and Hong Kong — are Canadian citizens, she said she’s fighting for their rights to explore the world and work abroad without having to worry about where to start a family.

And she said both the Liberals and Conservatives are at fault because the former also failed to prioritize and expedite the introduction and passing of the bill despite the court order in December 2023.

Her children, now 17 and 14, have attended Canadian international schools, participated in Terry Fox runs and visited family in Canada every summer and Christmas, said Matula, whose family now lives in Finland.

“My children are Canadian by descent and have strong ties to Canada,” she said “I want them to have clear and fair criteria to prove their connection to Canada, so they can have the same rights as Canadian-born and naturalized citizens.”

Source: ‘An ordeal that doesn’t end’: Lost Canadians’ citizenship at risk with Parliament suspended

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Chris Selley: Liberals’ failed citizenship bill will soon be the Conservatives’ problem

2025/01/14 Leave a comment

Conservatives should simply introduce a bill similar to C-71 but requiring the residency requirement be met within a five-year period as per permanent residents:

There is much for conservatives to celebrate about the death of the Liberals’ legislative agenda, which is one of the chief effects of proroguing Parliament: Every government bill in progress “cease(s) to exist,” as the House of Commons’ procedural website puts it, and would in theory have to start at square one once Parliament returns on March 24. In practice, of course, the only real order of business then will be bringing down the government. It is an ex-legislative agenda.

The death of Bill C-71, however, which would have amended the Citizenship Act with respect to so-called “second-generation-born-abroad” children of Canadian citizens, is potentially a serious problem. It’s at the very least a problem, and it’s one the Conservatives need a plan to solve starting on Day One.

I’ll try to explain the issue as simply as I can.

Once upon a time, Canadian citizenship could be passed down through the generations essentially forever: So long as you were a Canadian citizen, no matter how much time (if any) you had spent here, your children had an automatic birthright to citizenship. The Harper government changed the law in 2009: People who were born as Canadian citizens in other countries could no longer pass on citizenship to any of their children who were also born abroad.

The law has produced some maddening and very sad situations, which I have written about in the past. But most cases are probably more like my friends Tim and Emily’s — not disastrous, just arbitrary and pointless.

Tim and Emily were both born in Canada as Canadian citizens; both were raised and educated in Canada. They moved to Dubai for a few years to work, as tens of thousands of Canadians do, and had their daughter Tina there. Tina automatically became a Canadian citizen. They then moved back to Canada, where their son Mike was born. (These aren’t their real names.)

Were Mike to have a daughter in Dubai in the future, she would automatically be Canadian. Were Tina to have a daughter in Dubai in the future, she would not automatically be Canadian, because she would be the “second generation born abroad.”

(Bizarrely, Tina has lesser rights in this respect than a naturalized citizen. If you immigrate to Canada and become a citizen, the Citizenship Act considers you to have been born in Canada for the purposes of passing on citizenship.)

In December 2023, Justice Jasmine Akbarali of the Ontario Superior Court struck down this rule, which lives in a single section of the Citizenship Act, as unconstitutional. She gave the government six months to craft a legislative remedy.

That remedy was Bill C-71, which allowed people like Tina  to pass on citizenship to children born abroad so long as they could demonstrate a “substantial connection” to Canada — namely having spent 1,095 days in the country over the previous five years. It’s exactly what we require immigrants to demonstrate before they can receive citizenship. It seemed reasonable enough to constitutional lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who represented the applicants at the Ontario Superior Court.

“We thought that was fair. It was simple, it was equitable. It’s a rule that (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada) administers every day in relation to permanent residents who are naturalizing,” says Choudhry.

For some reason the Liberals decided to go much further. Most notably, Bill C-71 grants “citizenship by descent (to) all persons who were born outside Canada … to a parent who was a citizen” before the new law took effect. That’s an awful lot of people with the stroke of a pen — no one really knows how many; last month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated 115,000 — at a time when people want more control over immigration, not less. It also doesn’t cut off at the second generation: Third and fourth generations born abroad could receive citizenship if a parent could demonstrate this substantial connection.

The Liberals having lost any ability to govern, Justice Akbarali granted the government three extensions to her original six-month deadline. The third she granted “reluctantly,” emphasizing her displeasure at the government’s lack of “legislative diligence” but noting that “the interests of the public will be negatively affected if (her ruling) comes into force without replacement legislation in place.”

And there, for the Conservatives, is the rub. If the section of the Citizenship Act that Akbarali struck down simply disappears with nothing to replace it, we wouldn’t return to the status quo circa 2022. We would return to the status quo circa 2008: unlimited hereditary citizenship, which no one wants or is asking for.

“Allowing (my ruling) to take effect without replacement legislation would … result in … an unknowable number of people becoming automatic Canadian citizens,” Akbarali wrote.

That third extension expires on March 19, before Parliament could even theoretically get back to work on the file. In light of that, and of Akbarali’s previously stated concerns, odds are the government will ask for and receive another extension. But all that does is punt the ball to Pierre Poilievre’s first citizenship minister, who most certainly will not want to be seen opening the floodgates to any real or perceived “citizens of convenience.”

My impression of the Conservatives on this file is that they don’t want to be seen supporting what could be viewed as more generous citizenship laws. They want citizenship to have more value, not less, both practically and philosophically — and I’m all for that. But there is nothing remotely unpatriotic about working abroad for a few years, even if you happen to have been born abroad while your parents did the same. And it doesn’t bolster the value of citizenship to make life difficult for people who follow this very common life path.

The Liberals were most of the way to a perfectly reasonable remedy. The Conservatives should adopt the “substantial connection” test as their own, probably with a cutoff at the second generation, ditch the weird blanket citizenship-grant, pass it quickly and move on to tougher issues.

Source: Chris Selley: Liberals’ failed citizenship bill will soon be the Conservatives’ problem

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with

Jamie Sarkonak: Good riddance to all the Liberal bills that Trudeau just culled

2025/01/08 Leave a comment

…Also dead is that bill that would have made thousands of people around the world eligible for Canadian citizenship.

Bill C-71, if you remember, would give the children of Canadians born abroad citizenship through descent, as long as the parents can establish a “substantial connection” to Canada. The guardrail wouldn’t be a secure one, since some judges don’t believe that there are any citizens who lack a connection to the country.

The bill’s proponents marketed it as a remedy to a rare problem that sometimes afflicts Canadian families who live abroad, such as military families. However, in trying to solve their problems, the bill would have made it much easier for citizenship to be obtained by the grandchildren of birth tourists (people who who travel to Canada to give birth, which secures Canadian citizenship for their child)…

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Good riddance to all the Liberal bills that Trudeau just culled

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Lost Canadians bill could create 115,000 more citizens, says parliamentary budget officer

2024/12/20 Leave a comment

Hard to know whether my and other critiques over the lack of numbers by the government resulted in PBO doing the needed analysis. Overall population approach versus my mix of the same Statistics Canada study and passport-based approach but responds to the need for estimated numbers. About three times higher than my upper estimate.

The one assumption that may be questionable is to assume that the current average cost of citizenship proofs would apply to all. If there had been a time limit of five years to meet the residency requirement, that would be reasonable. Without the time limit, the share of more complex residency over multiple years and longer periods, would increase the complexity and cost. The PBO itself notes that “the take-up rate may be impacted by different factors which will affect the cost of the billI,” one of which would be the time period under which residency occurred.

It would have been helpful had the PBO provided a breakdown of the 115,000 by separate groups rather than just the overall number (c and d together would form the largest group) as well as more clarity on assumption based numbers (e.g., population growth rate):

  • “a) the number of Canadians by descent born outside of Canada between February 15, 1977 and April 17, 1981 and who have derived their citizenship from a Canadian by descent parent and did not apply to retain their citizenship before the age of 28;
  • b) the children of these persons;
  • c) the children of Canadians by descent who were born after the coming into force of the first-generation limit on citizenship on April 17, 2009; and
  • d) the number of adoptees of Canadians by descent.”

Given the highly uncertain status of the current Parliament following the Freeland letter, questionable whether C-71 will progress but the PBO analysis provides a more informed basis for discussion:

A bill to reinstate rights for what are known as lost Canadians could create around 115,000 new citizens in the next five years, according to a report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The report, published on Thursday, also estimates that it will cost the government $20.8-million over five years to implement the change, with $16.8-million coming in 2025-2026. The PBO presumes the law will come into force in April.

Bill C-71 was introduced by the government earlier this year after an Ontario court ruled it is unconstitutional to deny citizenship to children born overseas to Canadians also born outside the country.

The bill reverses a change by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2009 that stripped children of a Canadian parent born outside Canada of their automatic right to citizenship.

The 2009 change was designed to crack down on what Conservatives called “Canadians of convenience.” It followed an outcry after Canada spent more than $80-million to evacuate 15,000 Canadian citizens from Lebanon in 2006 during the Israel-Hezbollah war.

It has led to Canadians working abroad being denied the right to pass on their citizenship to their children. It has also meant that some “border babies” – born a few kilometres away in the United States – and Indigenous children born in communities straddling the border do not qualify for Canadian passports, despite living here.

The government, which has reduced its targets for the number of permanent residents to reduce pressure on housing and other services, has never publicly said how many new Canadians it expects the change in the law will create.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer based its 115,000 figure on estimates of the number of Canadians by descent living outside Canada and assumed that their numbers grow at the same rate as the Canadian population. The PBO included people who were adopted by a Canadian who could become citizens under the change.

“The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates a total net cost of the proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act to be $20.8-million over five years, beginning in 2025‑2026. The total number of persons that would be affected is estimated to be around 115,000 over the same period,” the report said.

Don Chapman, who has been campaigning for decades to restore rights to lost Canadians, said he did not think that all those gaining the right to citizenship under the bill who live abroad would opt to come to Canada. He said a lot of lost Canadians were already living in Canada, including children.

“It’s likely that most people who are eligible will not apply,” he said.

Source: Lost Canadians bill could create 115,000 more citizens, says parliamentary budget officer

PBO Report: Amending the Citizenship Act (2024) 

    Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

    C-71 Senate SOCI Report

    2024/12/16 Leave a comment

    Of note, as often happens, the narrower interests related to adoption prevail over broader policy considerations (time limit for residency test):

    This bill is a response to the December 2023 decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada). This decision declared that the existing provisions in the Citizenship Act that limit citizenship by descent to the first generation born abroad, contravene the mobility and equality rights provisions in sections 6 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). These provisions in the Act are thus unconstitutional and, as such, have no force or effect. The Court suspended its declaration of invalidity until December 19, 2024, to give the Government of Canada time to amend the Citizenship Act.

    With consideration to the impending court deadline, on November 28, 2024, the subject matter of Bill C-71 was referred to your committee for a pre-study, with instructions to report its findings to the Senate within two weeks. Your committee therefore received limited witness testimony and did not have enough time to seek additional clarity from stakeholders and government officials on this important piece of legislation. Your committee examined the subject matter of this bill over two meetings, hearing testimony from the Honourable Marc Miller, P.C., M.P., Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and departmental officials, in addition to six stakeholders.

    Your committee heard broad support for the substantial connection test proposed by Bill C-71.

    Concerns around equity and consideration of rights guaranteed by the Charter dominated much of the other limited testimony that was received. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship stated that, if Bill C-71 is adopted, the Citizenship Act will be in full compliance with the Charter for the first time in its history. While some stakeholders agreed that the bill addresses the exclusions of the current Act, others cautioned that inequities in recognizing citizenship may persist, including violations of Charter rights.

    In particular, concerns were raised by some stakeholders about the requirements for recognizing the citizenship of the children of internationally born adoptees. Your committee heard diverging perspectives on this point and, therefore, encourages the Government of Canada to engage with relevant stakeholders to further investigate this issue and consider amendments to the bill, if required.

    Your committee also acknowledges the overall complexity of the Citizenship Act and suggests that careful consideration be taken at each step of the legislative and implementation processes relevant to this bill to prevent future lost Canadians and further violation of Charter rights.

    During his testimony, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship informed the committee that the Government of Canada is seeking an additional extension to the court deadline.

    Source: C-71 Senate SOCI Report

    Media coverage focused on extension of court deadline:

    An unknown number of people will automatically become Canadian citizens next week if the Ontario Superior Court doesn’t grant the federal government a third extension to fix the issue of “lost Canadians,” Canada argued in court Thursday.

    “Lost Canadians” is a term applied to people who were born outside of the country to Canadian parents who were also born in another country. In 2009, the former Conservative government changed the law so people who were born abroad could not pass down their citizenship unless their child was born in Canada.

    In late 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that law is unconstitutional.The government has until Dec. 19 to amend the Citizenship Act to respond to that decision. It is now seeking its third extension, after being granted delays in June and August.

    In court Thursday the government asked for the Dec. 19 deadline to be delayed three months, until March 19, 2025, to give them more time to pass legislation.

    The Liberals introduced the amendments to the Citizenship Act in May but the bill only began real debate in September. It has been sidelined since then, as an ongoing battle between the Conservatives and Liberals delays most work in the House of Commons.

    The new legislation stipulates that anyone who meets the criteria would be eligible for citizenship if their parents spent a cumulative three years in Canada before they were born.

    Source: Missed ’Lost Canadians’ deadline would make ’unknowable’ number of new citizens: feds

    Filed under Birthright Citizenship, C-71, Citizenship Tagged with

    C-71 Senate committee hearings: My take

    2024/12/09 Leave a comment

    While I have followed the debates and discussions regarding “lost” Canadians over the years, this was my first time testifying on the issue in the context of C-71 along with many familiar faces. My one ongoing observation is despite all the language around up to one million “lost” Canadians, the reality is that most “lost” Canadians appear not want to be found, with only about 20,000 citizenship proofs issued (2 percent) since the first fix for those who lost their citizenship. 

    The other general comment pertains to the government’s policy choice of not having the same time limit to meet the residency requirement as for Permanent Residents. The statement by officials that this is intended to make it easier and more flexible for applicants suggests that officials, and likely the minister, have not learned many lessons from the overly facilitative approach for Permanent Residents, international students and temporary workers, all of which the government has since rolled back.

    We shall see the SOCI report in a few weeks and will see what points they took on and which ones they don’t.

    The following is my take on the major points raised during Senate’s SOCI pre-study hearings on the Bill. 

    Connection test: 1,095 days cumulative with no time limit (C-71) vs within 5 years: My earlier article and formal submission advocating for the residency requirement to be limited to the same 5 year period as per citizenship applicants provoked discussion at the Senate’s SOCI, with a number of senators questioning the rationale for the government’s decision. 

    Minister Miller argued that it was unlikely that the residency requirement would be “spread over forty years” and that a longer time period still means a “fairly important connection,” citing Lebanese Canadians as an example, the “Canadians of convenience” example that was the genesis of the first generation cutoff.  (Miller’s riding is about three percent Lebanese ethnic origin). The Minister also indicated concerns that the five-year limit would create another series of “lost Canadians.” 

    Officials further noted that the aim of C-71 was to be facilitative, citing examples of persons coming to Canada annually for summer vacations or family visits. Notably, neither the Minister nor officials addressed the operational complexities of a residency requirement with no time limit. Most witnesses and senators support a connection test.

    The appropriateness of a residency-base connection test was accepted by most witnesses.

    There was some discussion about whether the lack of a time limit increased the risk of “citizens of convenience,” with the Minister not believing it would (I had previously indicating more likely without a five-year limit).

    The possibility of using the electoral list as a basis for a connection test was raised. Given that only about 57,000 persons living outside Canada were issued ballots, only a small fraction of those living abroad, hard to see how this would be a valid alternative.

    Numbers affected and operational impact: The Minister and officials provided existing operational data but, beyond generalities, did not share any more detailed internal analysis. There are about 700 applications under the interim measures for those affected by the first generation limit. The Minister does not anticipate that “wild scenarios of hundreds and thousands” will materialize. Officials did not appear to have undertaken any analysis similar to that in my submission that provides estimated orders of magnitude. The other element of note is that the understandable focus was on the immediate cases, those born abroad and unable to transmit their citizenship. There was little to no discussion of the future operational impact and numbers when those second generation children born-abroad had children of their own also born abroad (as is the case of my grandson, who would have to meet the residency test). 

    Awareness and clarity: Predictable and legitimate calls for efforts to make those affected aware of the change, with officials indicating their efforts to make persons aware of the interim measures with work underway to prepare once Bill C-71 comes into force. The issue of readability of the current Act and the need for a new Act in lay language was raised, with the Minister noting his agreement in principle but not a priority in the final months of the government’s mandate.

    Indian status and citizenship: That some Indigenous persons have Indian status but not citizenship and vice versa was raised, with the Minister noting “ridiculous situations” and that citizenship should be automatic but there were examples of First Nations that were not Canadian.

    Adoptions: The CBA raised the issue of the difference between naturally born children, whose citizenship starts on the day of birth, in contrast to adopted children, who only obtain citizenship when the adoption is approved, recommending that the US and British approach of the effective date of adoption being the date of birth of the child. Hard for me to see any practical impact of current policy or substantive inequalities but understand importance to adoptee parents. 

    Similarly, I find it difficult to understand the arguments that internationally adopted children, citizens by grant under S 5.1 are being discriminated against compared to naturally born children. (If I recall correctly, the direct route under S 5.1 was a response to parents who wanted their adopted child to be treated identically to a natural-born child, and not under the Permanent Resident pathway as an immigrant. In my view, hard to have it both ways and there does not appear to be any substantive differential treatment in C-71). 

    The Minister himself, noting the test applies to the parents, not the child, did not see an inequality. Officials in a clear presentation clarified that natural and adopted are treated as similarly as possible and that not requiring the connection test for international adoptions could mean that citizenship could be passed on through generations without residency in Canada.

    Transcript below (preliminary): “If Bill C-71 is amended to eliminate the substantial connections test in the international context and begins to treat adopted persons as if they were naturalized citizens and not citizens by descent, as is in the case for children born abroad to Canadians, this will result in differential outcome for the two groups. Children adopted abroad by Canadians would benefit preferential treatment compared to children born abroad to Canadians, who would then be subject to different and more onerous requirements in order to pass on citizenship by descent. 

    If Bill C-71 were to eliminate the substantial connection requirement, again in an international adoptions context, it could mean that a child born abroad and adopted to a Canadian parent could then also adopt a child abroad and pass on citizenship despite never living in Canada. This would mean citizenship by descent could be passed down through generations of people who have never lived in Canada.”

    When I worked on these issues some 14 years ago, I always found a graphic was helpful on how C-71 would work with my effort below: 

    Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with

    Preparing for a Conservative government in the public service

    2024/12/03 Leave a comment

    This article was prompted by my experience under the Harper government and Minister Kenney, as a way to assist public servants likely facing a dramatic transition to a Conservative government. I hope readers find it helpful and that this will contribute to conversations regarding the likely transition:

    Faced with the likelihood of a majority Conservative government in the foreseeable future, Canada’s federal public service should seriously heed the warning of Stephen Harper’s former communications director, Andrew MacDougall, that “the hangman is coming.”

    Over 40 per cent of federal public servants have only worked under the Trudeau government, and after nearly a decade in power, many public servants may have internalized Liberal perspectives.

    A Conservative majority would signal public desire for change, and the public service, like it or not, will have to support a different and arguably sharper ideological agenda.

    While the Clerk of the Privy Council and deputy ministers will provide high-level direction along with transition briefing books, many of the challenges will affect mid-level executives. Looking back at my experience under the Harper government, as detailed in my book Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism, the following lessons may be helpful.

    These reflect the specific policy areas I was responsible for (citizenship and multiculturalism at the federal departments of Canadian Heritage and then Citizenship and Immigration), working under the activist and effective minister Jason Kenney, in what was arguably a less polarized political and social media environment. History seldom repeats itself, but hopefully these reflections will still provide some guidance for public servants beyond the usual transition planning….

    Full article source: Preparing for a Conservative government in the public service

    Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with

    ← Older posts