Alberta tables bill to add citizenship mark, health-care numbers to driver’s licences

The post 9/11 enhanced drivers licences issued by some provinces included citizenship but were all discontinued by 2019. NEXUS has largely replaced the need. Alberta’s inclusion of citizenship markers will not, of course, be accepted by US authorities:

Alberta’s government has tabled legislation to add health-care numbers and mandatory citizenship markers to driver’s licences and identification cards.

The government had announced its plans to do so earlier this year, leading critics to say the province was creating privacy concerns rather than protecting against them. 

Critics at the time said someone’s citizenship status would become known in unnecessary situations, such as purchasing alcohol.

Service Alberta Minister Dale Nally told reporters Monday that having citizenship markers on driver’s licences and other forms of identification is only meant to streamline access to services.

“When you’re applying for future benefits from the government of Alberta, it’s going to make it easier for you because you’re not going to have to produce a birth certificate. It’s going to be on your driver’s licence,” said Nally.

“Let’s be clear, that’s what this is about. This is about making it easier for Albertans to access services.”

Nally, and Premier Danielle Smith, had previously said adding citizenship markers — which will read “CAN” — to licences and ID cards was also about preventing election fraud and routing out potentially fake health-care numbers, but the minister didn’t mention either concern on Monday….

Source: Alberta tables bill to add citizenship mark, health-care numbers to driver’s licences

McMartin: How long must I live in Canada before I am no longer a colonist or settler?

Valid concern. I am always amused by op-eds or articles by new arrivals who adopt this language, apparently not considering some of the hypocrisy involved:

…In the modern context — in the context in which William’s history and, by association, my history are now being refigured — William’s emigration to Canada was not the stuff of dire need, or daring in the face of events beyond his control, or the stuff of nation-building. There is no recognition, appreciation or accounting of William as an individual dealing with forces greater than himself.

But there is government-sanctioned shame and remorse.

And the indelible stain of trespass.

And the attendant name-calling of “colonialist,” “occupier,” and “settler” — all meant not only to demonize William’s and my history, but to delegitimize it. There are the performative apologies that, while purporting to recognize that this stage play or children’s Christmas concert is taking place on the unceded territory of the local First Nation, they really serve to remind us that all non-Indigenous history is one of thievery.

And I get it.

And to a great degree I agree, because the fury and anger of the Indigenous Peoples in Canada is justified. The history is undeniable. The deaths, displacement and Eurocentric supremacist racism suffered by the Indigenous Peoples took place, and is still taking place. And I cannot deny the fact that my family prospered under the rule of successive colonial and post-Confederation governments while those governments marginalized Indigenous populations.

But.

While enlightened initiatives like truth and reconciliation speak well of Canada’s attempt to heal long-standing wounds, there is the real danger here that reconciliation can quickly become resentment and retrenchment, as we have seen in the U.S. and in Europe, where hard-right political parties, fighting race and cultural wars, have ridden popular resentment to the top of the polls and formed governments….

Source: Opinion: How long must I live in Canada before I am no longer a colonist or settler?

Senate urged to give children adopted from overseas the same citizenship rights as those born in Canada 

Perhaps I am a bit thick, but parents of foreign-born adoptees have to commit to raising their adopted child in Canada and thus would most likely meet the residency requirement of 1,095 days within a five-year period.  

The direct route to citizenship for adoptees was in response to parental pressure to have a faster route than PR sponsorship. But making that choice meant the adopted child was considered the first generation born abroad, like any naturally born child born abroad.

Appears more a matter of identity and convenience rather than fundamental practicalities to me:

….Two lawyers specializing in citizenship have submitted a briefing paper to the Senate committee, which will consider Bill C-3 this week. They argue that the bill should exempt children adopted from abroad from the substantial-connection test. 

The paper’s co-author, Toronto lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who filed the successful constitutional challenge to the Citizenship Act on behalf of Lost Canadian clients, said it is “deeply unfair to the families of these children to treat them differently than children adopted domestically.”

“It also violates Canada’s international treaty obligations and the Charter,” he said in an e-mail. 

Its other author, immigration lawyer Maureen Silcoff, suggested that unless Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada addresses the issue it could face a legal challenge. 

“IRCC is fully aware of the issue. Adoptive parents and MPs have been advocating on their behalf for years. We do not understand their reluctance to address this issue at this moment, when C-3 is before Parliament. Amending C-3 would avoid unnecessary litigation.”

Don Chapman, a leading advocate for Lost Canadians, who is giving evidence to the Senate committee this week, said, “I don’t want to leave any child behind.” 

But he expressed concern that amending the bill in the Senate may lead to it being held up when it returns to the Commons. …

Source: Senate urged to give children adopted from overseas the same citizenship rights as those born in Canada

C-3 Citizenship: My Planned Remarks

It will be a long SOCI meeting, as the Senate is holding all testimony in an over 4 hour session. Given the other witnesses, I will be the only contrarian voice on the need for a five-year limit to meet the residency requirement and the need for annual reporting of citizenship proofs issued under C-3 provisions (which the House immigration committee recommended but the Liberals and NDP reverted to the original bill at third reading).

CBA and CILA submissions focus largely on adoptions, advocating for birth date of adoptees, not the adoption date). CBA argues against requiring a consecutive residency requirement but doesn’t acknowledge that this can be cumulative within a five year period and would likely still be Charter compliant (allowing, to use their example, for Disneyland holidays).

Given the compressed timelines due to the court deadline, and the witness list, unlikely that SOCI will recommend and changes to C-3.

My planned remarks below:

Link to meeting: Agenda

C-3 Senate Hearing 17 November: My Submission

My submission, focussing on the Liberal/NDP agreement to remove the recommendations by the House Immigration Committee is below.

While removal and the unlikely to withstand legal challenges to language, knowledge and security/criminality proposals makes sense, removal of a time limit of five-years to meet the residency requirement of 1,095 days does not.

More puzzling is the removal of the requirement for annual reporting on the number of persons reclaiming their citizenship. The Minister and officials appeared weak when discussing the numbers and expected impacts, underlying the need for IRCC to share this data on open data or annual reports as they will be collecting it anyway:

No data exists on citizenship approved or denied due to criminal records

Data gap that doesn’t help. But arguably, not the biggest data gap to fill, as open data only has one citizenship dataset out of more than 100 for immigration-related programs:

….No data available on criminal-related rejections

“Due to data limitations, the department is unable to report on the number of applications for which an applicants has criminal record that were received, approved, denied, received but are still awaiting a decision, nor is the department able to provide a breakdown by type of crime which the department determined was severe enough to deny citizenship, and not severe enough to deny citizenship,” read a note on the response from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) tabled Wednesday in the House of Commons.

The means by which applicants can be denied citizenship are outlined in Sec. 22 of the Citizenship Act, which can include applicants under probation orders, inmates either incarcerated or on parole, those charged with or on trial for indictable offences, or those convicted of an indictable offence in the four years proceeding their citizenship application.

Denials under Sec. 22 aren’t always related to Canadian criminality – withholding documents or being untruthful are also grounds for rejection under the act, as are those involved in unlawful activities outside of Canada.

Those under investigation, charged with or awaiting trial for offences under the Crimes Against Humanities and War Crimes Act can also be denied citizenship – and those convicted under that statute may find themselves permanently barred from ever obtaining Canadian citizenship.

The fact this data isn’t recorded by the federal government is particularly concerning, Rempel Garner told the Toronto Sun. 

“It blows my mind that the government cannot tell us how many criminals they’ve given citizenship to,” said Rempel Garner, who is also the Conservative immigration critic

Source: No data exists on citizenship approved or denied due to criminal records

Ukraine names first countries eligible for simplified multiple citizenship

Not surprising, Canada on the list among others:

The Ukrainian World Congress (UWC) welcomes the decision by Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers to approve a list of countries whose citizens will be able to acquire Ukrainian citizenship through a simplified procedure.

According to Resolution No. 1412 of Nov. 5, the list includes Canada, the U.S., Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic.

The resolution will take effect simultaneously with the law “On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine to Ensure the Right to Acquire and Retain Ukrainian Citizenship” that was adopted by Ukraine’s parliament on June 18.

This decision marks an important step toward implementing the right of Ukrainians abroad to hold multiple citizenship. The adoption of this resolution not only strengthens the bond between Ukraine and the global Ukrainian community but will also help engage Ukrainians worldwide in the country’s post-war reconstruction.

The UWC has for years consistently supported legislative initiatives aimed at recognizing multiple citizenship, and the government’s decision today represents a historic moment for millions of Ukrainians abroad who seek to maintain a strong connection with their homeland.

The introduction of a simplified procedure for citizens of friendly nations sends a poignant  signal of unity among Ukrainians worldwide and represents another step toward Ukraine’s deeper integration into the Euro-Atlantic community.

As a reminder, on Oct. 8, Ukraine’s government adopted a resolution that set out the criteria for foreign states with which Ukraine can introduce a simplified process for acquiring citizenship.

In August, during a meeting with the UWC leadership, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy first named the countries that would be included in this simplified citizenship process.

Source: Ukraine names first countries eligible for simplified multiple citizenship

Globe editorial: There can’t be two types of Canadian citizen [C-3 citizenship by descent]

Very good Globe editorial assessing Conservative and Bloc amendments to C-3 and correctly distinguishing between the sound amendments of having a time limit of five-years to meet the residency requirement of 1,095 days and the requirement to have annual reporting on the number of persons claiming citizenship under the Bill’s provisions and the less sound amendments to require language and knowledge assessment and criminality/security checks that apply to new citizens, not those entitled to citizenship.

The Liberals and NDP removed the amendments at third reading. We will now see how the Senate deals with the Bill shortly, and whether it passes the original bill or provides some sober second thought and reinstates these two amendments:

…Last month, the Conservatives, supported by the Bloc, added an amendment in committee to change the requirement that in order to pass on citizenship, a foreign-born Canadian needs to spend 1,095 cumulative days in Canada before the child is born or adopted. The Conservative change would require the parent to spend 1,095 days in Canada within a five-year period. This revision makes sense, as it means these individuals have truly lived here, rather than just spent a few weeks at their grandparents’ cottage each summer. It demonstrates a more meaningful connection with Canada, and administratively, it will be easier to prove. 

The Conservative amendments would also require a report to Parliament annually on how many new citizens the bill creates. This is a sensible requirement. 

The problems lie with the Conservatives’ addition of an English or French language test, a security screening for criminal activity, and a citizenship test demonstrating knowledge of Canadian history. These requirements are similar to those needed by immigrants applying for citizenship, so it sounds logical – but it confuses the issue. 

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

Canadians by descent get their citizenship at birth based on their parents’ status. Presumably, under the Conservative rules, if these people applied as adults for citizenship certificates or passports and failed the tests, they could be stripped of their citizenship. Uyen Hoang, director-general of the citizenship branch at the Immigration Department, has warned that the tests would be “impossible to operationalize.” …

Source: There can’t be two types of Canadian citizen

Briefing: The Public Mood Before Budget Day (Abacus, immigration)

More from Abacus on immigration where concerns are more about capacity than culture or values:,

4. Immigration: Skepticism steady, focus on capacity

Views on immigration (new Abacus poll) have barely shifted since last year: 49% negative, 26% positive, 26% neutral. The concerns aren’t cultural, they’re about capacity.

Majorities still say immigration worsens housing (69%) and strains healthcare (around 60%), but opposition has softened slightly as the government lowers targets (67% now say “too high,” down from 72%).

Younger Canadians and Liberal supporters are more likely to see the upside — addressing labour gaps, supporting growth — while skepticism remains strongest in the Prairies and among Conservative voters.

The message: Canadians don’t want the gates closed, they want the system to work.

Source: Briefing: The Public Mood Before Budget Day

Majority of Canadians say immigration level still too high, but confidence growing in Carney fixing ‘broken’ system: Poll

Of note:

The Liberal party has restored some Canadians’ confidence in its ability to manage immigration, though a majority still believe the Conservatives are better equipped to fix the beleaguered system, according to a new poll.

A year after implementing some seismic policy changes to reduce immigration intakes, the Liberals are closing the gap with the opposition Conservatives in public perception of their ability to handle a system what many view as “broken,” said the Abacus Data survey, published on the eve of the release of Ottawa’s 2026-28 immigration levels plan on Tuesday.

Overall, 38 per cent of Canadians favoured the Conservatives to stickhandle this issue, compared to 29 per cent for the Liberals. However, the Liberals’ score has risen 13 percentage points on that question in the past year while those expressing confidence in the Conservatives only grew by four percentage points, said the poll for the Toronto Star.

“It does show how much (former prime minister Justin) Trudeau affected people’s perceptions,” said David Coletto, Abacus chair and CEO. “Now that he’s gone and the government has continued to follow through on that more restrictive immigration policy, they’ve kind of returned to more of a normal place.” Liberal Mark Carney became prime minister in March.

Rapid population growth as a result of high immigration dominated political debates over the last two years, and public concerns about lagging housing, health care and other social services have prompted the Liberal government to make drastic cuts in the admissions of both permanent and temporary residents, including foreign students and workers. Immigration applicants are also faced with backlogs and long processing times.

While 49 per cent of Canadians — virtually unchanged from 50 per cent last November — continue to view immigration through a negative lens, attitudes have largely stabilized, said Coletto, with 26 per cent of people expressing positive feelings toward immigration in Canada. 

Sentiment remains most negative among older Canadians and Conservative voters, while younger Canadians and Liberal supporters are more positive about immigration. Despite the lower permanent resident intake from 500,000 in 2024 to 385,000 this year, 67 per cent of people still said the target is too high; that percentage was down modestly from 72 per cent a year ago.

“Heading into a budget that will set a new immigration plan, the government is navigating a delicate balance,” said Coletto. “Canadians continue to see immigration through the lens of scarcity — too few homes, too much strain on public services, and a labour market that feels stretched. The public pressure is clearly on restraint, not expansion.”…

Source: Majority of Canadians say immigration level still too high, but confidence growing in Carney fixing ‘broken’ system: Poll