Hospital birth data suggests increase in birth tourism, says immigration expert

2025/12/19 2 Comments

Globe coverage of my policy options article:

Births in Canada to foreign visitors and other non-residents have risen in the past year, an expert in immigration statistics has found after analyzing hospital data. 

The research, published in a report on Wednesday, shows a small increase in births at Canadian hospitals to temporary residents, such as international students and people here on work permits.

The proportion of births to people who are not settled in Canada is small compared with births in the country overall, but the number of temporary residents in Canada has been dropping as the federal government has reduced immigration.

According to the report, authored by Andrew Griffith, a former director-general at the federal immigration department, the data suggest an uptick in births to women here on visitor visas, otherwise known as birth tourism. …

Source: Hospital birth data suggests increase in birth tourism, says immigration expert, Policy Options Birthright citizenship and the politics of “birth tourism”

Filed under Birth Tourism, Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Are you a Canadian by descent? New citizenship rules are in effect for ‘Lost Canadians’

2025/12/19 Leave a comment

Good plain language explanation:

…How do officials count generations in applying the new rule?

According to the Immigration Department, the first generation is defined as the first person born or adopted outside Canada to a Canadian citizen.

Whether a Canadian parent was born in Canada or is a naturalized citizen, their children born abroad are counted as first generation and considered Canadian by descent. The children born outside Canada to a first-generation person are now Canadian provided their first-generation parents meet the three-year physical residency requirement before their births.

This is also how officials count generations for people who are adopted and apply for a direct grant of citizenship.

What if you were born or adopted on or after Dec. 15, 2025?

People born outside Canada in the second generation or later may be Canadian if their parent was also born or adopted outside Canada to a citizen and that same parent spent at least three years in Canada before the birth. 

Adopted people are likely eligible to apply directly for Canadian citizenship if they were born and adopted outside Canada in the second generation or later, and if that same parent meets the residency requirement before the adoption. 

How about those who were born or adopted before the new law?

In most cases they are automatically a Canadian citizen if they were born before Dec. 15, 2025, outside Canada to a Canadian parent. The new rule also applies to those who were born to someone who became Canadian by descent because of the rule changes.

Adopted people should be eligible to apply directly for citizenship if they were born and adopted outside Canada in the second generation or later before that date.

What if you have a pending citizenship application under an interim measure?

In December 2023, after the court ruled the two-generation citizenship cut-off rule unconstitutional, Ottawa put in a temporary initiative to offer discretionary grant of citizenship by descent to certain affected groups while it worked on new legislation to make the citizenship law Charter-compliant. It resulted in more than 4,200 applications.

Any pending application under this measure will be processed under the new rules, and no new citizenship certificate application is required.

How do you prove your Canadian citizenship?

Those who believe they are eligible for citizenship by descent under the new rules should apply for a citizenship certificate as proof of citizenship if they became a citizen automatically. They will be assessed accordingly.

Source: Are you a Canadian by descent? New citizenship rules are in effect for ‘Lost Canadians’

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with

ICYMI: How Trump is remaking one agency to aid his deportation push

2025/12/17 Leave a comment

The one more facilitative part of Homeland Security being undermined:

The Trump administration is transforming the agency known for processing green cards and citizenship requests into one of its strongest anti-immigration policing arms.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, is one of the three branches of the Homeland Security Department that deals with migration.

Traditionally, its more than 20,000 employees have focused on the various ways people can lawfully immigrate and stay in the U.S. — be that applying for asylum, a green card, citizenship, work visa, or another legal pathway.

Since January, administration officials have taken an axe to that traditional mission by encouraging early retirements, shuttering collective bargaining agreements and drastically cutting back on programs that facilitate legal migration. New job postings lean into the rhetoric of hiring “homeland defenders” and tackling fraud.

During his Senate confirmation, USCIS director Joseph Edlow proclaimed that “at its core, USCIS must be an immigration enforcement agency.”

The efforts come as President Trump seeks to curb illegal immigration but also reduce legal ways to get to the U.S. and stay here, especially for certain nationalities.

It’s rocking the agency from the inside, crushing morale and prompting resignations, according to current and former agency employees.

With the recent changes, at least 1,300 people took the “Fork in the Road” resignation offer for federal employees, while others have left on their own. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection employees were not allowed to take the offer.)

And it’s catching immigrants and their families, lawyers and advocates off guard.

“‘Am I going to get arrested?’ … That’s a question, regardless of their past,” said Eric Welsh, an immigration attorney in California who helps his clients apply for various USCIS programs.

“There really is a lot more fear and there is a lot more concern about, should we do it at all?,” Welsh said, about people applying for legal status….

Source: How Trump is remaking one agency to aid his deportation push

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with ,

Supreme Court Showdown Exposes Shaky Case Against Birthright Citizenship

2025/12/15 Leave a comment

Good analysis but we shall see how SCOTUS rules:

On Friday, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment automatically makes all babies born on American territory citizens. Trump’s effort to overturn the traditional reading of the constitutional text and history should not succeed.

Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment provided a constitutional definition of citizenship for the first time. It declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” In antebellum America, states granted citizenship: they all followed the British rule of jus soli (citizenship determined by place of birth) rather than the European rule of jus sanguinis (citizenship determined by parental lineage). As the 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone explained: “the children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.” Upon independence, the American states incorporated the British rule into their own laws.

Congress did not draft the 14th Amendment to change this practice, but to affirm it in the face of the most grievous travesty in American constitutional history: slavery. In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Roger Taney concluded that slaves — even those born in the United States — could never become American citizens. According to Taney, the Founders believed that Black Americans could never become equal, even though the Constitution did not exclude them from citizenship nor prevent Congress or the states from protecting their rights.

The 14th Amendment directly overruled Dred Scott. It forever prevents the government from depriving any ethnic, religious or political group of citizenship.

The only way to avoid this clear reading of the constitutional text is to misread the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Claremont Institute scholars (many of whom I count as friends) laid the intellectual foundations for the Trump executive order; they argue that this phrase created an exception to jus soli. Claremont scholars Edward Erler and John Eastman argue that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires that a citizen not only be born on American territory, but that his parents also be legally present. Because aliens owe allegiance to another nation, they maintain, they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

The Claremont Institute reading implausibly holds that the Reconstruction Congress simultaneously narrowed citizenship for aliens even as it dramatically expanded citizenship for freed slaves. There is little reason to understand Reconstruction — which was responsible for the greatest expansion of constitutional rights since the Bill of Rights — in this way.

This argument also misreads the text of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Everyone on our territory, even aliens, falls under the jurisdiction of the United States. Imagine reading the rule differently. If aliens did not fall within our jurisdiction while on our territory, they could violate the law and claim that the government had no jurisdiction to arrest, try and punish them.

Critics, however, respond that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” must refer to citizen parents or risk being redundant when being born on U.S. territory. But at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification, domestic and international law recognized that narrow categories of people could be within American territory but not under its laws. Foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers occupying U.S. territory, for example, are immune from our domestic laws even when present on our soil. A third important category demonstrates that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was no mere surplusage. At the time of Reconstruction, American Indians residing on tribal lands were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Once the federal government reduced tribal sovereignty in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it extended birthright citizenship to Indians in 1924.

The 14th Amendment’s drafting supports this straightforward reading. The 1866 Civil Rights Act, passed just two years before ratification of the 14th Amendment, extended birthright citizenship to those born in the U.S. except those “subject to any foreign power” and “Indians not taxed.” The Reconstruction Congress passed the 14th Amendment because of uncertainty over federal power to enact the 1866 Act. If the amendment’s drafters had wanted “jurisdiction” to exclude children of aliens, they could have simply borrowed the exact language from the 1866 act to extend citizenship only to those born to parents with no “allegiance to a foreign power.”

We have few records of the 14th Amendment’s ratification debates in state legislatures, which is why constitutional practice and common-law history are of such central importance. But the few instances in which Congress addressed the issue appear to support birthright citizenship. When the 14th Amendment came to the floor, for example, congressional critics recognized the broad sweep of the birthright citizenship language. Pennsylvania Sen. Edgar Cowan asked supporters of the amendment: “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child born of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” California Sen. John Conness responded in the affirmative. Conness would lose re-election due to anti-Chinese sentiment in California.

Courts have never questioned this understanding of the 14th Amendment. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court upheld the citizenship of a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents. The Chinese Exclusion Acts barred the parents from citizenship, but the government could not deny citizenship to the child. The court declared that “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.” The court rejected the claim that aliens are not within “the jurisdiction” of the United States. Critics respond that Wong Kim Ark does not apply to illegal aliens because the parents were in the United States legally. But at the time, the federal government had yet to pass comprehensive immigration laws that distinguished between legal and illegal aliens. The parents’ legal status made no difference.

President Trump is entitled to ask the court to overturn Wong Kim Ark. But his administration must persuade the justices to disregard the plain text of the Constitution, the weight of the historical evidence from the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification and more than 140 years of unbroken government practice and judicial interpretation.

A conservative, originalist Supreme Court is unlikely to reject the traditional American understanding of citizenship held from the time of the Founding through Reconstruction to today.

Source: Supreme Court Showdown Exposes Shaky Case Against Birthright Citizenship

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Celebrities with distant Canadian roots set to gain citizenship under new Liberal law

2025/12/11 Leave a comment

Not surprising when one looks at grandparents. Unclear how many, if any, will apply:

A group of well-known American public figures, including singer Madonna and former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton, would become eligible to be considered Canadian citizens under a federal law passed last month that removes long-standing limits on citizenship by descent.

Bill C-3, adopted on November 20, eliminates the “first-generation limit,” a restriction introduced in 2009 that prevented Canadian citizenship from being passed to children born abroad if their Canadian parent was also born outside the country.

The change extends eligibility for citizenship to people who would previously have been ineligible, provided they have a Canadian ancestor somewhere in their lineage. Eligible candidates would need to go through an application process once the bill comes into force.

As a result, several prominent Americans with distant roots would be eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship once the law comes into force.

Madonna, who was born in Michigan and holds only U.S. citizenship, has French-Canadian ancestry through her mother’s family, which traces back to 17th-century Quebec. Under the new law, those historic ties would allow the star to apply for Canadian citizenship.

Actor Viggo Mortensen, born in New York to an American mother and Danish father, would also qualify through his maternal grandfather, who was born in Parrsboro, N.S. Mortensen currently holds U.S. and Danish citizenship.

Actress Lily Collins, born in England and raised in California, would also become eligible for Canadian citizenship based on her maternal grandfather’s birthplace in Winnipeg.

Hillary Clinton, whose French-Canadian roots stretch back to New France through her maternal line, would likewise become eligible for Canadian citizenship. Her genealogy was detailed in her 2003 memoir, which traces family ties to Quebec ancestors, including the Filles du Roi.

Musician Jack White of Detroit similarly would qualify through his paternal grandfather, who was born in Nova Scotia.

The government says the law is intended to address long-standing concerns about the first-generation rule and allow Canadian families affected by it to transmit citizenship to their children. Going forward, Canadians born abroad would be permitted to pass citizenship to their own children born outside the country, subject to a “substantial connection to Canada” test.

Although the legislation has passed, an implementation date has not been announced.

Until then, interim measures remain in place that allow individuals affected by the former limit to apply for proof of citizenship online. Applicants approved under the temporary process will not need to reapply once Bill C-3 comes into force.

Source: Celebrities with distant Canadian roots set to gain citizenship under new Liberal law

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with

More Canadians, including children, detained in U.S. for immigration violations, new data show

2025/12/10 Leave a comment

Not surprising, inevitable result of sweeping crackdowns:

A sweeping immigration crackdown in the United States is increasingly ensnaring Canadians who don’t have criminal records – including at least six children – new U.S. government data show. 

An estimated 207 Canadians have now been held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at some point since January, when President Donald Trump took office. The total number of Canadians held in 2024 was 130.

Earlier this year, an initial Globe and Mail analysis revealed that ICE had detained two Canadian toddlers in May at a remote facility in Texas. The analysis also showed that Canadians held by ICE were more likely to have criminal records than many other nationalities swept up in the White House’s mass deportation campaign, which has primarily targeted immigrants from Latin America. 

In the first half of 2025, almost 70 per cent of Canadians placed in immigration detention had criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. 

Now, a growing number of Canadian detainees are being held on immigration violations alone, updated enforcement data covering late July to mid-October show.

Of the Canadians detained during this period, some 44 per cent had no criminal records or pending charges against them, The Globe has found. The detainees include four children ranging in age from under two years old to about 16 years old.

Source: More Canadians, including children, detained in U.S. for immigration violations, new data show

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration, Trump administration Tagged with , ,

Young Canadians increasingly tie immigration to home affordability problems, survey finds

2025/12/08 Leave a comment

Link to report below to this insightful report. Really good analysis across different aspects:

Canadians’ attitudes toward immigration are the most negative they have been since the early 1990s, driven particularly by young people linking high migrant inflows to the affordability crisis and a housing shortage.

A new report from the Institute for Research on Public Policy, written by University of Toronto researchers, shows just how suddenly and dramatically sentiment toward immigration has changed in recent years. The report is based on 26 surveys produced by the Environics Institute between 1981 and 2024. 

Environics surveys the Canadian public annually on a variety of topics. Recent survey results have particularly stood out because of a pointed negative shift in attitudes toward immigration, after more than two decades of mostly pro-immigration sentiment across the country. This prompted the researchers to conduct a historical analysis of immigration attitudes in Canada to gauge when, previously, Canadians held such negative views. 

“Such drastic changes in public opinion are not common,” wrote Randy Besco and Natasha Goel, political science academics at the University of Toronto. “Public attitudes are usually subject to short-term shifts, only when there are major events or sustained media coverage, and such swings usually reverse quickly,” they said. …

Source: Young Canadians increasingly tie immigration to home affordability problems, survey finds

Report: Who Changed Their Minds? Two Shifts in Canadian Public Opinion on Immigration: 1995-2005 and 2023-24

Filed under Immigration, Polling Tagged with , , , ,

Chris Selley: Marc Miller, renegade heritage minister, Michel David: Miller, l’esthète «tanné»

2025/12/05 2 Comments

Miller certainly provoked a firestorm in Quebec, and now being convened by the OL committee in Ottawa. Will see how this plays out but Miller was certainly the strongest Liberal immigration minister and started the sorely needed reductions in levels and other policies. And he’s right that decline in French spoken at home simply reflects immigrant mother tongues:

…But in the meantime, backed by Carney, Miller might have at least done something quite useful here just by calling attention to the fact that the French-language debate in Quebec is a festival of over-torqued hokum.

When a purebred oaf like Legault calls you a full-of-shit disgrace, chances are good you’re on the right track. Same goes for the Parti Québécois and its presumptive next premier of Quebec, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, who on Tuesday assailed Miller as “one of the architects of the greatest decline of French in recent Quebec history.”

That’s many bushels of bananas. It’s a whole shipping container-full. As not-very-successful former immigration Miller noted outside the cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Ottawa been more than happy to indulge Quebec politicians’ desire not just for language restrictions, but for ever-greater francophone immigration to Quebec.

Miller didn’t mention, but could have, that Quebec officialdom is now annoyed by many of these francophone immigrants because they insist on believing in their strange God. Miller could have mentioned, but did not, that if native-born Quebecers aren’t going to have a lot more babies, and if Quebec doesn’t want francophone immigrants from anywhere other than Metropolitan France — and only atheists, at that — then it really might be screwed in the long term.

But as I say, Miller didn’t say that. To my knowledge, Miller has never disputed that the “French fact” in Quebec has downside risks. Rather, as he said on Tuesday, he rejects the “dogma that some political parties want to impose claiming that French is in total decline.” I hope he doesn’t shut up about it, because he’s right, and people really need to hear it.

The “Louisianisation” narrative is garbage. Every four years the Census reports essentially flat numbers on knowledge and use of French in Quebec: In 2021, Statistics Canada found, 94 per cent of Quebecers said the they knew how to speak French; 78 per cent claimed French as their mother tongue (not that mother tongue should matter, if Quebec nationalism is civil rather than ethnic); 79 per cent said they spoke French most often at home; 85 per cent said they spoke French most often at work.

Needless to say, that’s nothing whatsoever like Louisiana. French isn’t even Louisiana’s first second language.

Miller’s crimes against Quebec’s idea of political correctness don’t end there. He has gone so far as to suggest the fact that he speaks Swedish at home with his wife (she’s Swedish; they didn’t just take it up as a hobby) has no negative knock-on effects with respect to the state of French in Quebec. And of course that’s true as well. You’re just not officially allowed to say it in Quebec, which is the only place in the developed world where multilingualism is seen officially (though of course never by officials with respect to their own children) as a bad thing.

Miller has also been sworn into cabinet, in the past, while holding both a Bible and a Koran — a symbol of solidarity with Muslims, he said, but also a double-whammy in a province whose politics is obsessed with both secularism and with the threat of Islam.

The Liberals’ Quebec blind spot is especially remarkable considering how reliable their electoral results in that province are. But if Miller wants to be the minister who shakes things up, speaks truth to nonsense, about the state of play in his home province, I think we should wish him Godspeed.

Source: Chris Selley: Marc Miller, renegade heritage minister

Michel David in Le Devoir:

…Il ne fait aucun doute que M. Miller aime sincèrement la langue française, qu’il parle admirablement, mais cela ressemble davantage à l’amour de l’esthète pour les beaux objets, qui ont l’avantage de se laisser admirer sans faire d’histoires. Le problème est que les histoires de langue sont au cœur de son nouveau mandat.

Le déclin du français au Québec a toujours été contesté au sein de la députation anglo-montréalaise du Parti libéral du Canada. La députée de Saint-Laurent, Emmanuella Lambropoulos, avait dû quitter le comité permanent des langues officielles pour l’avoir nié. Son collègue de Mont-Royal, Anthony Housefather, s’était opposé à la nouvelle version de la Loi sur les langues officielles, craignant plutôt pour les droits des anglophones du Québec.

Sans le nier, M. Miller met des bémols au déclin du français. Au recul de la proportion de ceux dont c’est la langue maternelle, parlée à la maison ou encore au travail, il oppose la hausse du pourcentage de ceux qui sont en mesure de le parler.

Un plus grand usage du français dans l’espace public n’exclut cependant pas la nécessité de maintenir une masse critique suffisante de francophones de souche pour assurer le développement d’une culture française, même si tout le monde reconnaît la richesse de l’apport des diverses communautés.

M. Miller fait valoir qu’il y a eu des progrès depuis l’adoption de la Charte de la langue française (1977). À ce compte, on pourrait répliquer à ceux qui n’ont pas accès à un médecin de famille que la situation s’est améliorée quand même depuis l’instauration du régime d’assurance maladie (1970).

La réaction du premier ministre Legault aux « conneries » de M. Miller, avec lequel il avait déjà un contentieux, a peut-être été excessive, mais la recrue de Mark Carney n’en a pas moins ruiné d’un coup les efforts du successeur de Justin Trudeau pour dissiper la fâcheuse impression que le Québec et le français ne l’intéressent pas.

Le ministre québécois de la Langue française, Jean-François Roberge, a manifestement compris que cela risquait aussi d’apporter de l’eau au moulin souverainiste. Sa réaction aux propos de M. Miller a été bien différente de celle de M. Legault. « Bien, c’est bon, s’il est tanné du déclin du français, il va nous aider à le régler […]. Le Canada, ce n’est pas facile tous les jours, mais on y arrive », a-t-il déclaré.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon a d’abord réagi avec une modération inhabituelle, constatant simplement que M. Miller est « un gars qui a travaillé très fort contre le Québec dans plusieurs dossiers ». Quelques heures plus tard, son naturel belliqueux a repris le dessus, mais l’objet de sa colère était pour le moins étonnant.

Dénoncer, en disant avoir « honte », la « vacuité intellectuelle », « l’aplaventrisme » et la « déloyauté » d’une « partie substantielle » du milieu culturel québécois, dont les représentants ont salué la nomination de M. Miller, n’est certainement pas la meilleure façon de le rallier à la cause de l’indépendance.

Le chef du Parti québécois devrait prendre acte du fait que le Québec n’est pas encore souverain. Tant qu’ils envoient 40 % de leurs impôts à Ottawa, il ne faut pas s’étonner que les Québécois, y compris les artistes, cherchent à obtenir la part qui leur revient.

Source: Michel David | Miller, l’esthète «tanné»

There is no doubt that Mr. Miller sincerely loves the French language, which he speaks admirably, but it is more like the aesthete’s love for beautiful objects, which have the advantage of being admired without making a fuss. The problem is that language stories are at the heart of his new mandate.

The decline of French in Quebec has always been contested within the Anglo-Lonreal deputation of the Liberal Party of Canada. The MP of Saint-Laurent, Emmanuella Lambropoulos, had to leave the Standing Committee on Official Languages for denying it. His colleague from Mont-Royal, Anthony Housefather, had opposed the new version of the Official Languages Act, fearing instead for the rights of English speakers in Quebec.

Without denying it, Mr. Miller puts flats on the decline of French. To the decline in the proportion of those whose mother tongue is spoken at home or at work, it opposes the increase in the percentage of those who are able to speak it.

A greater use of French in public space, however, does not exclude the need to maintain a sufficient critical mass of native Francophones to ensure the development of a French culture, even if everyone recognizes the richness of the contribution of the various communities.

Mr. Miller argues that there has been progress since the adoption of the Charter of the French Language (1977). To this account, we could reply to those who do not have access to a family doctor that the situation has improved since the introduction of the health insurance plan (1970).

Prime Minister Legault’s reaction to Mr. Miller, with whom he already had a dispute, may have been excessive, but Mark Carney’s recruit has nevertheless ruined Justin Trudeau’s successor’s efforts to dispel the unfortunate impression that Quebec and France are not interested in him.

The Quebec Minister of the French Language, Jean-François Roberge, clearly understood that this also risked bringing water to the sovereignist mill. His reaction to the words of Mr. Miller was very different from Mr. Legault “Well, it’s good, if he is tanned by the decline of French, he will help us settle it […]. Canada is not easy every day, but we can do it,” he said.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon initially reacted with unusual moderation, simply noting that Mr. Miller is “a guy who has worked very hard against Quebec in several cases”. A few hours later, his warlike naturalness took over, but the object of his anger was surprising to say the least.

Denounce, by saying that they have “shame”, the “intellectual emptiness”, “aplantrism” and “disloyalty” of a “substantial part” of the Quebec cultural community, whose representatives welcomed the appointment of Mr. Miller, is certainly not the best way to rally him to the cause of independence.

The leader of the Parti Québécois should take note of the fact that Quebec is not yet sovereign. As long as they send 40% of their taxes to Ottawa, it is not surprising that Quebecers, including artists, are looking to get their share.

In La Presse, Déclin du français Marc Miller devra s’expliquer devant le comité des Langues officielles

La motion, adoptée jeudi à l’unanimité par les membres du comité, exhorte le ministre Miller à « témoigner pour une période de deux heures concernant sa position sur le déclin du français au Canada, incluant au Québec » au plus tard le 12 février. 

L’adoption de cette motion fait suite aux propos tenus mardi par le ministre Miller, qui s’est dit « assez tanné » du débat public entourant le déclin du français, le qualifiant de « généralement identitaire et électoraliste ».  

Le ministre Miller était déjà attendu jeudi devant le Comité permanent des langues officielles pour répondre aux questions entourant l’étude sur l’usage du français par le premier ministre Mark Carney, mais M. Miller n’était pas autour de la table lors de la rencontre, à la grande surprise du député conservateur Joël Godin.

The motion, adopted unanimously on Thursday by the members of the committee, urges Minister Miller to “testify for a period of two hours regarding his position on the decline of French in Canada, including Quebec” no later than February 12.
The adoption of this motion follows the remarks made on Tuesday by Minister Miller, who said he was “quite tanned” with the public debate surrounding the decline of French, describing it as “generally identity and electoralist”.
Minister Miller was already expected Thursday before the Standing Committee on Official Languages to answer questions surrounding the study on the use of French by Prime Minister Mark Carney, but Mr. Miller was not around the table during the meeting, much to the surprise of Conservative MP Joël Godin.



Filed under Interculturalisme, Language, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Conservatives call for end to ‘one-click citizenship,’ return to in-person ceremonies

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

The last public data, from the Minister’s transition briefing book, indicated 45 percent of ceremonies were in person. A significant increase from earlier years but agree, as readers will know, the default should be an in-person ceremony, as citizenship ceremonies are not just about convenience but mark and celebrate becoming a citizen with others joining the “Canadian family:”

The Conservatives are asking the Liberal government to end “one-click citizenship” and return all citizenship ceremonies to in-person events. 

“Last year over half of the people who became Canadian citizens did so by clicking a box online. That’s crazy,” Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner said Wednesday. 

“There is no way to justify this practice,” she said. “With support for immigration at an all-time low, returning to inclusive, nation-building ceremonies is a no brainer.”

Describing the in-person citizenship ceremony as the “essential unifying bedrock of Canada’s civic life,” Rempel Garner said the move would restore the ceremony’s “community significance.” 

New Canadians began taking their citizenship oaths through virtual ceremonies in April 2020 in order to adhere to social-distancing guidelines. 

In July 2022 the federal government resumed holding in-person ceremonies but kept the virtual option to help get more people through the system.

The federal government said the option took off in popularity; less than 10 per cent of new Canadians availed themselves of in-person ceremonies in the last six months of 2022.

Cutting down wait times

Virtual ceremonies are not exactly “one-click” affairs. According to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), they require a number of steps. 

IRCC provides a videoconference link where the person seeking citizenship meets with an official to have their identity verified and watch them cut their permanent resident card up with scissors.

Once that’s done, the person joins a virtual ceremony where they take the oath of citizenship, sign a document affirming they took the oath and send it to IRCC.

In 2023, the federal government floated the idea of having people self-affirm their citizenship oath. But when that idea went out for public consultation, 61 per cent of respondents were against it, and only 36 per cent supportive. 

Conservative MP Tom Kmiec endorsed a petition calling for IRCC to revert to in-person citizenship ceremonies as the default.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, Paul Chiang, responded to the petition saying virtual ceremonies have helped IRCC cut down wait times for citizenship ceremonies.  

Source: Conservatives call for end to ‘one-click citizenship,’ return to in-person ceremonies

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Canadian Immigration Tracker: Third quarter 2025 update

2025/12/01 Leave a comment

Regular quarterly update across immigration programs: Permanent Residents, Temporary Residents (workers, students and visas, asylum seekers) and Citizenship. Trend across all programs shows year-over-year and two-year decline.

Covid-19 Immigration Effects – Key Slides – 2025 SeptemberDownload

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →