Interesting how this view has emerged that this possibility was not raised in any substantive way during the parliamentary and other discussions of C-3 and predecessor bills, with discussion focused on retroactive application to the second generation born abroad, not earlier generations. Examples include Idées | Après la loi C-3, un réveil franco-américain, and the CBC article below this commentary, both with respect to early waves of Quebec emigration to the USA.
As the CBC story makes clear, considerable work is still required to document the family links, which I can appreciate having done some genealogy myself. IRCC may face challenges in verification.
As in all cases of “lost Canadians,” the degree to which individuals will wish to avail themselves of Canadian citizenship will likely be significantly less than the overall number of Canadian expatriates in the second generation and beyond. But given that most descendants of Canadians reside in the USA, there appears to be a Trump push factor.
2027 data will provide an indication:
…Stakeholders in citizenship law are now wondering how the new law will be interpreted and applied. An increasing consensus is emerging that the potential beneficiaries could include anyone who has an ancestor who was born in Canada, no matter how far back – even before 1867. It may be that many people in New England (who have ancestors from the Maritimes) or even Louisiana (who can trace their lineage back to the expulsion of Acadians in the 18th century) may now have claims to Canadian citizenship.
Not included in Bill C-3 are any requirements for security checks on those who would claim citizenship under the new rules. Nor are they required to provide police certificates or pass language or knowledge tests. According to the Act, “Canadians who are currently born citizens by descent are not required to undergo security or criminality screenings in order to be or remain citizens.”
Moreover, a committee briefing from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration notes that most people currently excluded from citizenship because of the first-generation limit were born after 2009, when it came into force. This cohort consists largely of minors aged 16 and under in 2025 and are generally deemed to be lower risk for security or criminality purposes.
In fact, Bill C-3 opens the door to citizenship for many people born before as well as after 2009. Among them are many people who might give rise to security concerns. But since they are now deemed Canadian citizens by law rather than by grant, they do not need to submit to security checks. This raises serious concerns in an increasingly dangerous world.
Equally important is the broader issue of what makes a person Canadian. By opening the citizenship door so widely, it diminishes the importance of an inherited history and a shared stake in the future.
While the government aimed for prospective uniformity, by sidestepping retroactive changes it may have inadvertently bolstered the case that Canada truly is “the first post-national state.”
Randolph Hahn is a partner with Garson Immigration Law and has practiced exclusively in citizenship and immigration law for many years. He is a former chair of the Citizenship and Immigration Section of the Ontario Bar Association and is the associate editor of the Immigration Law Reporter. He has authored many professional papers.
Millions of Americans can now claim Canadian citizenship by descent. But they have to prove it
…In Quebec, official documents dating back to 1621 and up to 100 years ago are kept by the Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (BAnQ), with more recent records available through the Directeur de l’état civil.
Sarah Hanahem, an archivist with the BAnQ office in Montreal, said while there’s always been an interest from Americans looking into their ancestry, requests for certified copies have exploded.
“In January 2025, we had 32 requests for certified copies of vital records and this year in January 2026, we’ve had over 1,000,” she said, adding most of those requests were made by Americans.
In statements to CBC, other archives across the country, including New Brunswick, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Ontario, have also seen a sizable increase in requests from the same time last year.
Because of the sudden surge in demand, Hanahem warned that international applicants should expect delays.
The priority, she said, is to fulfil requests by Quebec residents.“BAnQ is a government entity and we are paid with Quebec tax dollars.”
But more than that, Hanahem said the process itself is lengthy and can involve a lot of research.
There are sometimes discrepancies with the spelling of names, some of which might have changed over time, she said. Other times, critical information like which parish someone was born in, is unknown or key dates are approximate when actual dates are required.
“We have to go back to the original register,” Hanamen said, explaining some of the bound volumes are very old and need to be handled carefully. …
One of the frustrations during C-3 hearings on the removal of the first-generation citizenship transmission restriction was the weak data presented by the government and the overly general but nevertheless useful PBO analysis.
IRCC did, however, indicate some 4,000 interim applications had been received and shared the data regarding these applications: gender, age, country of residence.
This working paper presents the analysis for citizenship data nerds.
Appears from today’s hearings that SCOTUS is inclined to agree with Bouie’s assessment:
…It is not so much that revisionism is on its face outrageous, but that any alternative reading of the citizenship clause must strike at the heart of the rejection of Dred Scott. On this count, Trump and his defenders fail. Their vision of citizenship — which would plunge countless children into statelessness as a permanently subordinate class — would bring Dred Scott back from the dead. And it would do this in support of a political agenda that seeks nothing less than the reconstruction of race hierarchy and the rank domination of despised minorities.
The evidence in favor of the traditional view of the citizenship clause is overwhelming. To rule otherwise is to say, in essence, that two plus two equals five. Which is to say that if the Supreme Court decides in favor of Trump, it will have less to do with law or history than the political power of the president and his movement.
Trump v. Barbara, then, is a stark reminder that the struggle over constitutional meaning involves the entire nation. The revisionist case rests less on new evidence than it does on Trump’s claim to embody the nation and its desires. If he is ascendant, then the people must want a closed, cloistered society.
Articles and opinions related to citizenship that I found of interest in March:
Idées | Après la loi C-3, un réveil franco-américain
This is the second article that has focussed on potential applicants from early waves of Canadian francophone emigrants to the USA. This possibility was never raised I believe in either House or Senate hearings on C-3 and its predecessors, and the focus and discussion was on second generation, not earlier generations (Indian media did flag possibility). I will be making a data request in 2027 and have asked IRCC whether their data collection will distinguish between second and earlier generations:
…“Pour comprendre l’onde de choc, il faut revenir au fameux « plafond » : la limite de première génération. En clair, les enfants nés à l’étranger de parents canadiens pouvaient être citoyens canadiens, mais ne pouvaient pas transmettre automatiquement leur citoyenneté à leurs propres enfants si eux aussi naissaient à l’étranger. La chaîne s’arrêtait après une génération née hors du pays.
Une décision rendue en Ontario en décembre 2023 a jugé ce régime inconstitutionnel dans certains cas, ce qui a forcé Ottawa à corriger le tir. C-3 permet donc la citoyenneté au-delà de la première génération née à l’étranger, mais en posant une condition de « lien substantiel » : la citoyenneté peut circuler plus loin dans la chaîne familiale à condition qu’il y ait une ancre réelle au pays, démontrée par 1095 jours — trois ans — de présence physique cumulative au Canada.
Et voilà ce qui change tout : pour beaucoup, il ne s’agit pas de « demander » la citoyenneté comme un privilège, mais de faire reconnaître un statut qui s’appuie maintenant sur des règles précises afin d’obtenir une preuve de citoyenneté. Psychologiquement, ce n’est pas la même posture.”
Pourquoi la Nouvelle-Angleterre s’enflamme
Si cette loi fait battre le cœur de la Nouvelle-Angleterre, ce n’est pas un hasard. Entre 1830 et 1970, près d’un million de Québécois ont traversé la frontière — surtout vers les villes industrielles — pour travailler dans les filatures et les manufactures. Le résultat démographique est immense : leurs descendants représentent aujourd’hui près de dix millions d’Américains.
Cette diaspora a longtemps été racontée comme une épopée ouvrière : un peuple qui quitte la terre, cherche du travail, construit des quartiers, des paroisses, des clubs, fondent des journaux. Mais c’est aussi une histoire de hiérarchie sociale : des Canadiens français devenus main-d’œuvre bon marché, comme tant d’autres groupes dans l’Amérique industrielle. Ce double héritage explique la charge émotionnelle du moment : la loi C-3 ne touche pas seulement un cas juridique ; elle réveille une mémoire.
Surtout, elle arrive des années après qu’une fierté franco-américaine s’est reconstruite « par en bas » : balados, blogues, festivals, initiatives locales. Parmi ceux qui s’activent aujourd’hui, il y a des amis à moi qui animent un balado franco-américain très écouté, d’autres qui ont fondé le PoutineFest du New Hampshire — devenu assez solide pour essaimer, avec des éditions à Burlington, au Vermont, et dans “le Maine — et d’autres encore qui tiennent depuis longtemps des blogues franco-américains. La fierté n’a pas attendu Ottawa. Mais l’accès, lui, oui.
L’Amérique pousse, le Québec attire
Pourquoi maintenant ? Parce que l’Amérique inquiète. Dans mes échanges, je sens moins une mode qu’une fatigue : fatigue politique, fatigue institutionnelle, fatigue culturelle. La citoyenneté canadienne devient un filet de sécurité pour certains : un passeport, oui, mais surtout une option familiale.
Mais réduire ce mouvement à une fuite serait une erreur. Beaucoup ne parlent pas d’abord de soins de santé ou d’élections. Ils parlent de langue. Ils parlent d’immersion. Ils parlent d’un désir de vivre — enfin — dans un endroit où le français n’est pas un folklore, mais un espace public.
Plusieurs se disent fièrement Franco-Américains. D’autres se décrivent carrément comme « Québécois », avec ce mélange de fierté et d’envie : envie d’une société qu’ils perçoivent comme plus cohérente, plus collective, moins brutale. Et ils sont lucides : tous ne pourront pas transférer leur carrière ici. Les avocats, les fiscalistes, ceux qui ont des professions encadrées le savent. Pourtant, ils avancent, parce que ce n’est pas seulement une équation économique : c’est une trajectoire.
Bienvenue chez vous »… mais préparons-nous
Soyons francs : cette loi a un impact particulier — et probablement disproportionné — sur les descendants de Québécois aux États-Unis. Elle ne déclenchera pas automatiquement une migration de masse. Les démarches restent exigeantes : prouver la filiation, retrouver les bons documents, faire valider les chaînes.
Mais la direction du courant est claire. Et le Québec doit regarder cette réalité en face : une partie de cette diaspora va frapper à sa porte, non pas comme des étrangers, mais comme des « revenants » — avec une attache réelle, un imaginaire familial, parfois un français brisé, parfois un français intact.
La question n’est donc pas seulement de savoir combien viendront, mais comment on les accueillera. Oui, la citoyenneté donne des droits. Mais l’installation au Québec implique aussi des devoirs, des choix, un ancrage. Et si une partie de cette vague devient une immigration durable, elle peut aussi être un gain : démographique, économique, culturel — et, franchement, linguistique, si ces nouveaux arrivants viennent précisément chercher le français.
Alors, oui : Québécois et Canadiens français, préparez-vous à dire « bienvenue chez vous ». Mais disons-le intelligemment : avec des parcours d’accueil réalistes, des ponts de francisation adaptés et un discours public qui évite de transformer des cousins en boucs émissaires.
Parce qu’au fond, C-3 ne fait pas que corriger une incohérence juridique. Elle réactive une vieille histoire : celle d’un peuple parti travailler ailleurs… et dont les descendants, un siècle plus tard, demandent non pas la permission, mais la reconnaissance de revenir toucher le fil.”
Rémi Francœur Franco-Américain, l’auteur est analyste politique et ancien directeur de campagnes politiques au New Hampshire. Il est installé à Montréal depuis 2015.
…”To understand the shock wave, we must return to the famous “ceiling”: the first generation limit. Clearly, children born abroad to Canadian parents could be Canadian citizens, but could not automatically transmit their citizenship to their own children if they were also born abroad. The channel stopped after a generation born outside the country.
A decision rendered in Ontario in December 2023 ruled this regime unconstitutional in some cases, forcing Ottawa to correct the situation. C-3 therefore allows citizenship beyond the first generation born abroad, but by placing a condition of “substantial link”: citizenship can circulate further in the family chain provided that there is a real anchor in the country, demonstrated by 1095 days – three years – of cumulative physical presence in Canada.
And this is what changes everything: for many, it is not a question of “asking” citizenship as a privilege, but of having a status recognized that is now based on precise rules in order to obtain proof of citizenship. Psychologically, it’s not the same posture.”
Why New England is on fire
If this law makes the heart of New England beat, it is no coincidence. Between 1830 and 1970, nearly a million Quebecers crossed the border — mainly to industrial cities — to work in spinning mills and factories. The demographic result is immense: their descendants now represent nearly ten million Americans.
This diaspora has long been told as a workers’ epic: a people who leave the earth, look for work, build neighborhoods, parishes, clubs, found newspapers. But it is also a story of social hierarchy: French Canadians who have become cheap labor, like so many other groups in industrial America. This double legacy explains the emotional charge of the moment: Law C-3 does not only affect a legal case; it awakens a memory.
Above all, it comes years after a Franco-American pride has rebuilt itself “from the bottom”: podcasts, blogs, festivals, local initiatives. Among those who are active today, there are friends of mine who host a much listened to Franco-American podcast, others who founded the PutinFest of New Hampshire – which has become solid enough to swarm, with editions in Burlington, Vermont, and in “Maine – and others who have long held Franco-American blogs. Pride did not wait for Ottawa. But access, yes.
America is pushing, Quebec attracts
Why now? Because America is worried. In my exchanges, I feel less a fashion than a fatigue: political fatigue, institutional fatigue, cultural fatigue. Canadian citizenship becomes a safety net for some: a passport, yes, but above all a family option.
But reducing this movement to a leak would be a mistake. Many do not first talk about health care or elections. They speak language. They talk about immersion. They speak of a desire to live – finally – in a place where French is not a folklore, but a public space.
Many proudly call themselves Franco-Americans. Others describe themselves flatly as “Quebecers”, with this mixture of pride and envy: desire for a society that they perceive as more coherent, more collective, less brutal. And they are lucid: not all will be able to transfer their career here. Lawyers, tax specialists, those who have supervised professions know it. However, they move forward, because it is not just an economic equation: it is a trajectory.
Welcome home”… but let’s get ready
Let’s be frank: this law has a particular — and probably disproportionate — impact on the descendants of Quebecers in the United States. It will not automatically trigger a mass migration. The steps remain demanding: prove filiation, find the right documents, have the channels validated.
But the direction of the current is clear. And Quebec must face this reality: part of this diaspora will knock on its door, not as foreigners, but as “revenants” – with a real attachment, a family imagination, sometimes a broken Frenchman, sometimes an intact Frenchman.
The question is therefore not only how many will come, but how they will be welcomed. Yes, citizenship gives rights. But settling in Quebec also implies duties, choices, an anchorage. And if part of this wave becomes sustainable immigration, it can also be a gain: demographic, economic, cultural – and, frankly, linguistic, if these newcomers come precisely for French.
So, yes: Quebecers and French Canadians, get ready to say “welcome home”. But let’s say it intelligently: with realistic welcome paths, adapted francization bridges and a public discourse that avoids turning cousins into scapegoats.
Because basically, C-3 does not only correct a legal inconsistency. It reactivates an old story: that of a people who have gone to work elsewhere… and whose descendants, a century later, ask not for permission, but the recognition of returning to touch the thread.”
Rémi Francœur Franco-American, the author is a political analyst and former director of political campaigns in New Hampshire. It has been based in Montreal since 2015.
Canadians living abroad are calling for increased turnout among overseas voters and arguing that barriers to casting a ballot could be affecting election results.
Looking forward the PROC report and recommendations. In contrast to the USA with relatively strong Republicans and Democrats Abroad, Canadian political parties do not appear to have the same interest although the Liberals seem to have a greater focus that the Conservatives (https://www.conservativesabroad.ca). The Liberals have the expansive multi-generational interpretation of C-3. As in the case of “Lost Canadians” and previous elections, the number who may be interested and vote is likely smaller than advocates believer.
Upcoming analysis on the provincial and country breakdowns for the 2025 election, sample below, Ontario and British Columbia have higher proportions than other provinces:
Timothy Veale, the director of Grits Abroad — an organization aimed at connecting Canadian Liberal voters living worldwide — said nearly five million Canadians live outside the country and roughly 3.5 million of them are eligible to vote.
Veale said the share of non-resident Canadians voting in federal elections is mired in the low single digits. He said the causes include mail-only voting, compressed timelines, uncertainty about ballot arrival and delivery and a lack of outreach from party campaigns.
Daniel Scuka, a member of Grits Abroad living in Germany, said parties need to “wake up” and encourage Canadians overseas to vote. He said Elections Canada could also be directed to do more to support overseas voting.
Veale said federal parties should see overseas voters as an opportunity.
“I’d like to see a politician ask us for their vote,” he said. “In the last election … I don’t think anybody courted any of the five million people living overseas.”
Veale said the system “needs modernization” and Canadians should be able to vote in person at an embassy, consulate or high commission. He also pointed out that several countries allow online voting.
“We have the right to vote and a 37-day election was not designed for people abroad to apply to vote,” he said. “If you get approval, then you have to wait for the ballot to be sent to you, then you have to send it back. And imagine having to navigate over 200 different national postal systems around the world.
“We’ve seen how other countries operate and we can do way better than this. It’s just a matter of will, as I see it.”
Elections Canada said in an email that 101,690 voting kits were issued to electors living outside of Canada in the last general election. Of those, 57,440 were returned on time and tallied….
As Americans in Canada prepare U.S. tax filings, lower citizenship renunciation fee offers a way out
Not to be cynical but given that Democrats abroad tend to be larger than Republicans….
The U.S. government’s decision to decrease its citizenship renunciation fee by more than 80 per cent may result in more Americans in Canada giving up their U.S. citizenship, cross-border tax experts say, as the deadline for Americans abroad to file their taxes approaches.
Earlier this month, the U.S. State Department announced that the consular services fee charged to Americans giving up their citizenship will drop to US$450, down from US$2,350, effective April 13.
Unlike Canada and most other countries, the U.S. bases its tax system on citizenship rather than residency. That means a U.S. citizen must file a U.S. tax return every year regardless of where they live. In addition, the U.S. requires Americans to report on their foreign financial accounts annually.
The deadline for filing a U.S. tax return is April 15, but Americans living abroad receive an automatic filing and payment extension until June 15, and a possible further extension to Oct. 15, if they request it. To avoid interest charges, any taxes are still due by April 15….
Juno News caught this change. Deserves wider reading and concern given “take home test” is a further diminishment and integrity reduction of Canadian citizenship:
The majority of immigrants seeking Canadian citizenship will apply completely through a self-administered online citizenship test, which they will be permitted up to three attempts to pass.
The virtual format for the Canadian citizenship test, popularized throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, is now the default, according to new instructions from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).
Before 2020, citizenship tests were written in person by default. Applicants were generally given 30 minutes to complete the test. If they failed, they had one opportunity to rewrite it before being referred to a knowledge or language hearing.
The IRCC released updated information on Monday, formalizing a 45-minute time allotment for the online, self-administered test. Applicants must answer 15 of the 20 questions correctly.
Meanwhile, most citizenship ceremonies have also gone virtual, with the Conservatives pushing Ottawa to reinstate in-person ceremonies.
In December, Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner calledon the Liberals to return to in-person ceremonies, which she called a “sacred event” where new Canadians “swear an out to the country and take on the responsibilities and obligations that come with citizenship.”
During a press conference in Ottawa, Rempel Garner said it was time for the Carney government to “restore the value of Canadian citizenship.”
“Last year, over half of the people who became Canadian citizens did so by clicking a box online. That’s crazy. There is no way to justify this practice, and with support for immigration at an all-time low, returning to inclusive nation-building ceremonies is a no-brainer,” she said at the time. “In person, citizenship ceremonies are the essential unifying bedrock of Canada’s civic life.”
She called for an immediate end to “one-click citizenship” and to “restore the full dignity and communal significance” of the in-person ceremonies for new Canadians.
“Just as with marriage, these are sacred events, and the responsibilities and obligations taken on swearing the Oath of Citizenship in front of an official should be upheld as an integral part of committing to those responsibilities that come along with being Canadian,” Rempel-Garner said. “The Liberals rejected every opportunity to restore in-person ceremonies. Justice Minister Sean Fraser even defended virtual ceremonies, saying the practice could be easier for bureaucrats to manage.”
This comes after the president of the Customs and Immigration Union, which represents the Canada Border Services Agency, revealed to an immigration committee that the majority of asylum claims are being done through an app. He warned Canadians that removing person-to-person interviews could compromise Canada’s security.
Follow the money applies even more strongly to Trump, his family and his enablers:
…And while banks are required to adhere to anti-money-laundering and KYC rules and list where a customer lives, they are not currently required to collect and verify citizenship information.
If Mr. Trump signed such an executive order, it could require banks to retroactively get citizenship information from existing customers and collect it from new customers.
Politics and privacy aside, that task would be Herculean – and expensive. The costs would likely be passed on to customers.
Opponents of such a measure would say that once again, Mr. Trump is overreaching his authority. This has nothing to do with the integrity of the banking system and everything to do with his agenda.
Supporters would be quick to remind detractors that one of Mr. Trump’s top campaign promises was to crack down on illegal immigration. And while not everyone agrees with his tactics, don’t be so naive to think you can do the job by being soft, and this is what the majority of American voters said they wanted.
At the end of the day, it really comes down to the now infamous line from All the President’s Men, the 1976 film about the Watergate scandal.
If you want to shine a light on corruption, “follow the money.” And that, presumably, is what such a measure would be meant to do.
Regular detailed tracking of Canadian immigration including permanent residents, temporary workers, asylum claimants, and study permits from 2018 to 2025 with regional and program-specific insights.
Quarterly and annual comparisons. While Permanent Residents 2025 target met, temporary workers, IMP and TFWP, significantly exceed planned levels, with students also exceeding.
While all programs showed significant increase since 2018 baseline, 2025 also showed a decline compared to 2024. Slides 3 and 4 provide the highlights.
When Lena Diab was appointed head of Canada’s Immigration Department, community expectations were high.
The new minister is the daughter of immigrants, is trilingual and spent part of her childhood in Lebanon. Diab had also previously served in cabinet in her home province of Nova Scotia.
“It seemed like the perfect plan,” said Stephan Reichhold, executive director of the Quebec-based Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes.
But Reichhold quickly became disillusioned with a minister who, in his opinion, was conspicuous in her absence.
Members of Parliament are also expressing disappointment in Diab’s performance — including some of her fellow Liberal caucus members.
‘She is completely absent’
Reichhold said he has never managed to speak directly with Diab, despite repeatedly asking to meet following her swearing-in last May.
“I have seen 14 immigration ministers come and go, and it is truly surprising. We are really astonished that she is completely absent,” Reichhold said.
That’s in contrast with her predecessor Marc Miller, who Reichhold said had frequent contact with stakeholders in the field even when his government lowered its immigration targets.
Radio-Canada spoke with five other organizations that criticized Diab’s availability. Among them is the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, which spoke with the minister only once, via videoconference, last spring.
The organization is seeking to open a path to permanent residency for Ukrainians who have fled the war, but has still not managed to secure an in-person meeting with Diab. Her predecessors were more readily available, said the CEO of the congress, Ihor Michalchyshyn.
“It’s frustrating,” he said. “We haven’t been able to schedule a meeting despite several attempts.”
Organizations also note that the minister is not very visible in the media, even as the immigration issue was widely covered in Quebec.
When asked to comment, Diab declined Radio-Canada’s request for an interview and did not provide a written response.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Mark Carney said that “as minister of immigration, [Diab] plays a key role in the government’s mandate to bring immigration back to sustainable levels, while attracting the best talent in the world to help build our economy.”
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) did not comment on the criticism from community groups.
Committee presence criticized
On the few occasions when Diab has been visible — in parliamentary committee, for example — her performance has raised eyebrows.
At the end of October, the minister had difficulty answering a question from the Bloc Québécois about processing times for refugee status applications and sought information from the civil servants sitting next to her.
Exasperated, MP Claude DeBellefeuille snapped, “Madam minister, why won’t you answer me? It’s your power. Why are you delegating it to your civil servant?”
“There are many laws governing these issues,” Diab replied, adding that “it depends on the circumstances.”
A few weeks later, Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner, known for her sharp tongue in committee, questioned Diab about the possibility of extending the visas of millions of temporary residents and called her a “very bad minister.” The exchange was widely shared on social media.
“I understand as a woman in politics, sometimes you can get framed unfairly,” said Rempel Garner in an interview with Radio-Canada. “But she is the minister of immigration. She has to step it up, right? And I just, I haven’t seen that.… I feel like I know the file far better than she does.”
The minister testified this month before two Senate committees studying the border security legislation Bill C-12. On several occasions, Diab had to give the floor to the officials accompanying her, visibly unable to answer the questions.
“She doesn’t have a strong command of her file,” said Bloc Québécois MP Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, who was present during some of these committee exchanges and who, until recently, was the Bloc’s immigration critic.
Discouraged Liberals
Criticism is coming not only from opposition parties, but also from Diab’s own Liberal colleagues.
Away from the cameras, 10 Liberal MPs spoke to Radio-Canada about her performance. They were granted confidentiality in order to express themselves freely.
Of those, only one defended Diab’s job performance. Although several of them emphasized that she is a “good person” in charge of a “difficult” portfolio, nine MPs said they believe that the minister is overwhelmed and are openly questioning her place at the cabinet table.
“It doesn’t make sense. In the House of Commons, many MPs hold their breath when she answers questions from the opposition,” said one Liberal elected official.
Definitely a theoretical possibility but in practice, given that most parents will not have met the residency requirement needed for the second and third generation to claim citizenship will likely be a small percentage. But proof data will show the extent of any increase but only broken down by country:
…Bill C-3 allows citizenship to flow beyond the first generation born or adopted abroad, ultimately recognizing an entire chain of descendants, as long as there is a Canadian citizen who anchors the chain with at least 1,095 days (three years) of cumulative physical presence in Canada. The descendants will automatically be new citizens, able to obtain proof of Canadian citizenship, rather than having to apply for citizenship.
Patrick White, a journalism professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal, points to significant interest in obtaining Canadian citizenship by the descendants of French Canadians who migrated from Quebec to New England.
“I see a genuine interest in Facebook groups associated to Franco Americans,” White said in an email to National Post. One group, based in Maine, posted news about the new legislation in early February.
“Close to one million French Canadians left Québec between 1840 and 1930,” says White, citing Franco-American historian, David Vermette, who described the migration in his book, Distinct Alien Race: The Untold Story of Franco-Americans.
Their descendants “now represent almost 10 million Americans,” says White. “The current climate in the U.S. is leading many of them to inquire about the possible acquisition of Canadian citizenship because of the changes made here in December. This is a ‘Plan B’ for them.”
Though, “it’s too early to say” if there how many will be applying, he adds.”
…But in a Federal Court decision dated Feb. 12, Bapari successfully challenged the decision by a delegate of the immigration minister that refused him relief based on his personal circumstances.
“Mr. Bapari recognized that he had misled the authorities by relying on false identity when he first came to Canada, and then by not disclosing the misdeed when he claimed permanent residence and citizenship,” Roy said. “But he raised a number of issues that qualify as personal circumstances. The MD (ministerial delegate) had to address these in the reasons in writing he had to give.”
The MD found that Bapari “has obtained his Canadian citizenship by fraud or false representation or by knowingly concealing material circumstances,” said the Federal Court decision.
“The failure to disclose the alternate identity and removal order prevented an accurate eligibility and admissibility assessment, thus allowing (Bapari’s) return to Canada without the required written authorization. The application for Canadian citizenship suffered from the same defect. That application was not true, correct and complete in spite of the attestation to that effect given by” Bapari.
“The MD found that Bapari “has obtained his Canadian citizenship by fraud or false representation or by knowingly concealing material circumstances,” said the Federal Court decision.
“The failure to disclose the alternate identity and removal order prevented an accurate eligibility and admissibility assessment, thus allowing (Bapari’s) return to Canada without the required written authorization. The application for Canadian citizenship suffered from the same defect. That application was not true, correct and complete in spite of the attestation to that effect given by” Bapari.
The MD didn’t see the “circumstances surrounding the misrepresentations” as extenuating, or serving to lessen the seriousness of his actions, because Bapari didn’t have to use a false identity, said the decision. “Wanting a better life in Canada cannot be an excuse to undermine the integrity and fairness of Canada’s immigration system,” it said. “The misrepresentations constitute a very serious and intentional deception.”
“The MD emphasized that, as a previously deported person, Bapari “was banned from returning to Canada: a written authorization was required. Hence, the misrepresentations had the effect of circumventing the process. The admission of guilt and the remorse expressed by (Bapari) do not overcome the actions taken to circumvent immigration and citizenship laws.”
The MD examined Bapari’s social ties in Canada. “The decision maker notes in passing that (Bapari) has been living with his wife for 23 years without any trouble with the law. Good ties and roots have been established, including participating in community and religious activities. Stable employment is acknowledged; the loss of citizenship would result in an inability to work, which would put the couple in financial distress. The MD reckons that the revocation of citizenship could cause great emotional, psychological distress to (Bapari’s) wife, together with the financial stress resulting from his inability to work.”
Bapari also “now suffers from chronic diseases, which require medical treatment,” said the decision, which does not elaborate on his health condition.
“The MD considered Bapari’s “misrepresentations in and of themselves as being so grave that no personal circumstances appear to warrant special relief,” said the judge. “The integrity and fairness of the immigration system are put on a pedestal without engaging with the actual personal circumstances.”
Furthermore, the MD “puts the bar very high in requiring that (Bapari) demonstrate ‘extenuating circumstances that necessitated (his) misrepresentation to Canadian authorities.’ Without any explanation, the MD turns ‘special relief’ into a requirement that the misrepresentations be a necessity, perhaps even duress has become a must.”
No explanation was offered to Bapari “for such a restrictive view of what warrants ‘special relief,’” said the judge. “An explanation is needed for the reviewing court to assess its reasonableness.”
Roy concluded “that more and better is expected of a decision maker,” according to his decision. “The power over vulnerable persons brings with it the high responsibility to ensure that the reasons have duly considered the consequences of the decision when Parliament has instructed that personal circumstances be considered with a view to warrant special relief.”
“The MD’s reasons provided in this case “are not adequate to the task,” said the judge. “Whether or not the outcome might be reasonable is not relevant. It is the process leading to the outcome which is deficient, making the decision under review not reasonable.”
They’re “inadequate in view of the stakes,” Roy said. “As a result, the matter must be sent back to a different decision maker for redetermination.””
Multicultural Meanderings 