StatsCan – Source country matters: Citizenship trends among recent immigrants in Australia and Canada

2025/11/27 Leave a comment

Another informative study, highlighting common patterns and flagging divergence with respect to source countries. As I had noted earlier in work with the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, the prohibition of dual citizenship in source countries does not affect naturalization rates, whereas comparative growth rates do, as countries with more rapid growth lower the “value proposition” of Canadian citizenship:

…In both countries, the declines in immigrant citizenship rates were most pronounced among those from countries with substantial living-standard gains (e.g., China, with 82% growth in GDP per capita PPP, and India, Vietnam and the Philippines, with 39% to 56% growth) or enhanced passport strength (e.g., Colombia and China). These reductions contrast with minimal changes from nations showing slower growth (e.g., source countries with less than 15% GDPgains). Notably, source-country economic expansion (China’s 82% vs. Canada’s 6% and Australia’s 10%) appears strongly correlated with falling naturalization rates, suggesting that improved economic conditions in the source country reduce immigrant incentives for citizenship acquisition in the destination country.

Dual citizenship recognition had minimal influence on naturalization patterns. Source countries with similar living standards but differing dual citizenship policies showed similar citizenship rates. Declines in citizenship rates occurred across major origin countries despite stable dual citizenship policies during the study period. This consistency means that dual citizenship regulations in source countries were not a driver for the reduced naturalization rates in both Australia and Canada. Furthermore, some countries have made acquiring foreign citizenship less prohibitive, even while dual citizenship is not allowed. For instance, China has introduced reforms granting residency and certain rights to skilled overseas Chinese people since 2010. Likewise, India’s Overseas Citizenship of India program, established in 2005, offers eligible people of Indian origin various socioeconomic benefits, residency rights and long-term visas (Tan & Liu, 2024).

While source-country developments influenced citizenship trends, divergent declines between Australia and Canada suggest additional factors. Chinese, Colombian, Vietnamese and Pakistani immigrants showed steeper drops in Australia, while Filipinos, South Koreans, Britons, Americans, Sri Lankans, Malaysians, Iranians and Iraqis declined more in Canada. Notably, living standards changed very little in South Africa, Iran and Iraq, yet South African immigrants experienced about 12 percentage point decreases in both nations, whereas the rates for Iranian and Iraqi immigrants declined significantly in Canada but remained stable in Australia. 

These differences between the two countries in naturalization trends among immigrants from the same source nation indicate that other explanations are at play. These might include differences between the two countries in the modification of their policies and regulations regarding citizenship acquisition, differences in the characteristics of immigrants from the same source nation, and other unknown factors. 

In summary, this study analyzed changes in citizenship rates among recent immigrants from major source nations to Australia and Canada. By focusing on immigrants who have met residency requirements for naturalization, the analysis examined observed and adjusted citizenship rates—controlling for sociodemographic characteristics—across 14 major source-country groups. The findings revealed marked declines in citizenship uptake among recent immigrants in both countries over the 2011-to-2021 period. These declines were most pronounced among immigrants from countries that have seen significant improvements in living standards or passport strength, particularly China, India, Vietnam, the Philippines and Colombia. Dual citizenship policies in the source country appear to have little effect on naturalization trends. The magnitude of declines varied by country of destination and source country. 

This study demonstrates that immigrant naturalization patterns must be understood transnationally. Improvements in source-country economies, expanded global mobility options and enhanced passport values collectively reduce immigrant incentives for citizenship acquisition in destination countries. The observed declines suggest a partial decoupling of permanent residency from citizenship. Notably, while destination-country integration and citizenship policies can clearly affect naturalization patterns, they appear to be increasingly contingent on immigrants’ evolving motivations and source-country conditions. These findings challenge conventional integration models and underscore how dynamic global hierarchies and transnational migrant strategies can shape migration outcomes—in this case, the naturalization rate.

Source: Source country matters: Citizenship trends among recent immigrants in Australia and Canada

Filed under Citizenship, Dual Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Liberals, NDP bid to undo Harper-era rule on citizenship for Lost Canadians

2025/10/27 Leave a comment

The Liberals and NDP, along with government officials, are right to raise concerns regarding the amended Bill’s requirement for knowledge and language assessment along with security and criminality checks as these would likely not survive legal challenges.

However, there is no such impediment to the amendment requiring the residency requirement of 1,095 days within a five year period prior to the birth of a child. Nor is there any such impediment for requiring annual reports on the number of Canadians claiming their citizenship under the Bill’s provisions:

The Liberals and NDP are pushing for a citizenship bill to move forward without Conservative changes that would require security screening and language checks before children born abroad to foreign-born Canadians could qualify for a passport. 

Earlier this month, Conservatives, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, voted through a raft of changes to the government’s proposed legislation, known as Bill C-3. 

The bill aims to reverse a change by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2009 that stripped people born into this situation, who are often known as Lost Canadians, of their automatic right to citizenship.

But the Conservative amendments to the Liberal bill – expected to go to a vote on Monday – would make people aged 18 to 54 clear several hurdles in order to inherit Canadian citizenship, putting them on roughly even ground with immigrants seeking citizenship. 

They would have to pass an English or French language test, be subject to security screening to check for criminal activity, and pass a citizenship test demonstrating knowledge of Canadian history.

Bill C-3 requires Canadian parents born abroad to demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada before they can pass on citizenship to a child born outside the country. They would need to spend a cumulative 1,095 days – the equivalent of three years – in Canada before the birth or adoption of the child seeking citizenship. 

The Conservative changes would require the 1,095 days to be consecutively spent in Canada within five years, and not made up of a few weeks, months or days over many years. …

Source: Liberals, NDP bid to undo Harper-era rule on citizenship for Lost Canadians

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with , , , , , ,

What happened to ‘click once for Canadian citizenship’? The government has (quietly) thought twice

2025/10/24 Leave a comment

Nice to see that all the efforts from many to stop this hair-brained initiative paved off (quoted):

The Immigration Department has quietly shelved a controversial plan that would have allowed new citizens to take their citizenship oath on their own with a click on the keyboard.

“There is no self-administration of the oath in Canada,” the department said in an email in response to a Star inquiry for an update about the plan. “Implementation of the self-administration of the oath is not actively being pursued at this time.” 

In February 2023, the federal government published the proposed change in the Canada Gazette as part of the modernization and digitalization of immigration and citizenship processing.

The self-attestation option was meant to reduce citizenship processing time and cost, and make it more accessible, because ceremonies are generally scheduled on weekdays during working hours. It was supposed to be launched in June that year. Unlike in a virtual citizenship ceremony, there would be no presiding official.

However, a chorus of prominent Canadian leaders, including former governor general Adrienne Clarkson, former Liberal immigration minister Sergio Marchi and former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi, came out to voice their opposition. Critics feared this would further dilute the meaning of Canadian citizenship.

“It’s a fundamental downgrading of understanding of what Canadian citizenship is about and how meaningful it can be,” said Andrew Griffith, a former director general for the federal Immigration Department, who had organized a petition to Parliament opposing what he calls “citizenship on a click.”

“It’s not a driver’s licence. It’s actually something that has some meaning. It gives very significant rights to people, so it shouldn’t be taken lightly.”

While Griffith welcomed the news, he is troubled that the government did not officially note in the Gazette that it had dropped the plan or at least publicly stated a change in policy. The Gazette is the official government publication to inform the public about new and proposed regulations, statues, orders-in-council and appointments. 

“There’s always that risk particularly at a time when the government’s trying to find money, that somebody might revisit it, we’ve got the authority here, we can do that,” said Griffith.

“At least have a press release saying that, ‘After thinking about it carefully, given the importance of the incident, blah, blah blah, we’ve decided against this approach.’”

During the pandemic, citizenship processing time doubled from the prior 12-month service standard, prompting immigration officials to bring in virtual citizenship ceremonies in April 2020. Since then, more than 20,600 virtual ceremonies have been held before a citizenship judge or a presiding official online; processing time is down to 13 months. 

Last year, 2,045 virtual and 1,417 in-person citizenship ceremonies were held. From January to August this year, there were a total of 2,382 citizenship ceremonies, including 1,162 virtual and 1,220 in-person events.

In its email to the Star, the Immigration Department said officials conducted an analysis after public consultation on the self-administration of the oath. It took into consideration the “client experience journey,” measures related to the integrity of the process and “commitment that citizenship ceremonies remain an important part of Canadian tradition.”

“The Government of Canada is committed to continue delivering meaningful, celebratory and inclusive in-person and virtual ceremonies while offering clients a choice” between taking their oath in person or virtually, it said.

The department said it has been moving toward a more “integrated and modernized” working environment to help speed up application processing. Expanding citizenship ceremonies, tests and interviews to an online format was part of its goal of bringing efficiencies and simplifying the citizenship program and process, it added.

The department also said it is “actively” working on updating its citizenship guide, a project that started shortly after the Liberals returned to power in late 2015 when Justin Trudeau became the prime minister. Liberal Mark Carney has been prime minister since March.

The current citizenship guide, last revised in 2012, still uses some outdated information about the country and is short on the Indigenous history and the information about residential schools that were promised. The guide is studied by citizenship applicants, who must pass a knowledge exam as part of the requirement to become naturalized citizens.

Officials said they have engaged a wide range of partners to ensure the revised study guide represents all Canadians and people living in Canada as best as possible, including Indigenous Peoples, minority populations, women, francophone and Canadians with disabilities.

“These extensive consultations will ensure that the guide is historically accurate, more balanced and inclusive of the people that make up this country and its history,” the department said, adding that it has not set a launch date for the new guide.

Currently, the Canadian citizenship application fee is $649.75 for adults over 18 years old and $100 for minors.

Source: What happened to ‘click once for Canadian citizenship’? The government has (quietly) thought twice

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

New report outlines the biggest reasons immigrants stay in Canada, and it’s not just financial

2025/09/10 Leave a comment

From my friends at ICC. Courage and optimism are characteristic of immigrants:

As Canada risks losing more immigrants amid a rising cost of living, a new report finds the biggest factors in whether newcomers stay aren’t just financial.

While housing and affordability remain top concerns, a new survey of nearly 5,000 immigrants finds newcomers are far more likely to stay in Canada if they feel hopeful about their future and connected to the country, according to a report from the Institute for Canadian Citizenship on Tuesday.

Optimism about the future – measured by immigrants’ confidence in their personal and family prospects, plans for long-term life in Canada and belief that friends and family can succeed here – is the strongest driver of immigrant retention, with just a one per cent increase in optimism boosting the likelihood of staying by 28 per cent.

A one per cent increase in a sense of belonging – measured by identifying as Canadian, feeling accepted in Canada, trusting other Canadians and believing that the country provides good opportunities for one’s family – increases the likelihood to stay by 25 per cent.

The same increase in safety and stability raises the likelihood of a newcomer staying permanently by 16 per cent, and an uptick in economic optimism adds 15 per cent.

As Ottawa plans to slash the number of immigrants over the next three years, resulting in a 1.7 per cent drop in the country’s gross domestic product by 2027, it is crucial to retain talented immigrants who are already here, said Daniel Bernhard, CEO of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship.

New immigration targets are expected to cut Canada’s population growth by 1.4 million over the next three years, with permanent resident admissions dropping from 464,265 in 2024 to 365,000 in 2027, leading to 1.3 billion fewer hours worked, according to Canada’s parliamentary budget officer.

“Immigrants are hand-selected to address Canada’s most pressing needs and so each one that leaves is a great loss,” Bernhard said. “The needs they were brought here to fill do not leave with them.”

One in five immigrants who come to Canada ultimately leave the country within 25 years, with about one-third of those people moving on within the first five years, according to a November report from the ICC.

The report found that economic immigrants and francophones are the most likely to leave – the two categories of immigrants Canada prioritizes most.

The ICC is calling on policymakers to increase immigrant retention through targeted investments in domains that help build connection and optimism, including “initiatives that support newcomer skills development and labour market integration” and “activities that connect immigrant families and friends to each other and to other Canadians, building community, inclusion and belonging.”

“We know immigrants are leaving Canada, but until today, policymakers had very little evidence to guide investments in retention,” Bernhard said.

The survey shows that “making people feel at home, feel welcome, feel Canadian, feel attached to this place and to these people is more than just a nice thing we do for our newest neighbours,” he added.

“It’s a key growth and success strategy for the community.”

Source: New report outlines the biggest reasons immigrants stay in Canada, and it’s not just financial

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , ,

Pierre Poilievre’s call to scrap the temporary foreign worker program marks new, tougher stance for Conservatives

2025/09/04 Leave a comment

Safer area for Conservatives to attack and immigration critic Rempel Garner is having fun tweeting examples of TFWs in low-skilled service jobs. The excesses need to be trimmed and Canadian employers should not rely on TFWs to the same extent as cheaper labour or avoiding more investment in technology. Expect the provinces will also push back given the views of their business communities.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is calling on Mark Carney’s Liberals to ditch the federal government’s decades-old temporary foreign worker program, taking a harder stance against a program he’s previously said should be reduced, not axed outright.

The reason why, Poilievre said Wednesday, is because of worsening youth unemployment, rather than a Liberal-induced “immigration crisis” he has claimed has weakened both the economy and security of the country.

“The individual temporary foreign workers, the workers themselves, they are not bad people. They are not the problem. They are being taken advantage of by Liberal corporate leaders who want to use them to drive down wages,” Poilievre said at a news conference in Mississauga.

“We continue to support the dream of all immigrants to Canada, the immigrants who come here to be Canadian to get a job, work hard, contribute and live a good life that is part of the Canadian promise, and that is not what we’re addressing here today.”

Experts, however, warn that the Conservative leader’s framing is misleading, and promotes beliefs that foreign workers are a prominent threat to Canadian jobs.

The long-standing temporary foreign worker program allows Canadian companies to hire foreign nationals for temporary positions, as long as employers complete a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) to demonstrate the need for a temporary worker and that no local Canadians or permanent residents can fill the role. Through its various streams, the program has been lauded as a way to address labour shortages, but has also become a magnet for criticisms that it exposes workers to exploitation and abuse.

During this year’s spring campaign, Poilievre pledged in his platform to “restore order to immigration” in part by “dramatically reducing the number of temporary workers.”

On Wednesday, his party called on Ottawa to permanently end the program, cease issuing visas for new workers, create a separate program for “legitimately difficult-to-fill agricultural labour,” and to wind down the program more slowly in “ultra-low-unemployment regions.”

Tim Powers, chair of public affairs firm Summa Strategies, said Poilievre’s tougher position and shift in tone suggests he is seizing on Canadians’ economic fears while also avoiding turning away more immigrant communities who could join his coalition of Conservatives.

“It isn’t so much about what the program actually does. It’s what he thinks it represents to Canadians, this narrative that their jobs are being taken from them, and young people don’t get the opportunity to do work because temporary foreign workers are replacing them,” Powers said.

“I think if you talk to a lot of employers who use the program, they would tell you that trying to find local workers, particularly in service-based jobs … is hard to do because not everyone views the opportunities to work in a fish plant or a Tim Hortons as a job they want.”

At a cabinet retreat in Toronto, Prime Minister Mark Carney said he believed the program still had a place in his policy book and said he would assess how well the program was working.

“When I talk to businesses around the country … their number 1 issue is tariffs, and their number 2 issue is access to temporary foreign workers,” Carney told reporters.

But the Conservative leader, citing a youth unemployment rate that has climbed to 14.6 per cent, rolled out a series of claims about the program to justify his ask.

“The Liberals promised they would cap the temporary foreign worker program at 82,000, but in the first six months, they’ve already handed out 105,000 permits,” Poilievre said.

….According to federal data, Canada set a target to admit 82,000 new arrivals through the program this year.

But Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada said Poilievre’s 105,000 figure does not “represent new arrivals to the country” and includes permit extensions for people already in Canada.

“Between January and June 2025, 33,722 new workers entered Canada through this program, which is roughly 40 per cent of the total volume expected this year,” a spokesperson for the department said in an email.

Despite Poilievre’s focus on the economic impacts of the program, some economists and immigration experts expressed concern about that the Conservative leader’s comments could still feed into the belief that migrant workers steal jobs. 

“It is wrong to suggest that migrant labour is a major source of the problems Canadian workers are experiencing today — which are the result, first and foremost, of (U.S. President) Donald Trump’s tariff attacks, lingering high interest rates, the decline of high-wage industrial jobs, and government austerity in some provinces,” said Jim Stanford, economist and director of the think tank Centre for Future Work.

Stanford also emphasized that the program Poilievre is targeting only makes up a small share of the workforce and should not be confused with foreign workers under the substantially larger International Mobility Program, which includes international students.

Stanford said Poilievre’s claim that temporary foreign workers now make up two per cent of Canada’s workforce is inaccurate.

According to government data on the program, there were approximately 191,000 work permit holders in total in 2024, “less than one per cent of the workforce,” Stanford said. …

Source: Pierre Poilievre’s call to scrap the temporary foreign worker program marks new, tougher stance for Conservatives

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Su | Canada’s immigration approach is becoming more exclusionary. It’s not the direction we should be heading

2025/08/20 Leave a comment

Classic example of activist academic arguments, conflating previous race-based criteria with more objective age, language and education criteria, assuming that refusals are all unjustified, that international students were the focus of anger rather than the Liberal government.

And any public conversation will of course need to address the very real pressures on housing, healthcare and infrastructure that immigration-based population growth has exacerbated.

It is striking that so many immigration researchers did not anticipate or warn about the impact of the excessive growth in temporary and permanent residents. Some reflection is in order, rather than making these weak, and in some cases, false arguments:

In 2023, Canada marked the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, a law that explicitly banned nearly all Chinese immigrants for nearly a quarter century. Many see it as a black mark in Canadian history because it deliberately targeted and expelled the very Chinese labourers who had done the dangerous, back-breaking work of building the Canadian Pacific Railway, only to be cast aside once their labour was no longer needed.

The centenary was a moment of reflection. But since then, Canada has become more restrictive, not less. Rising immigration refusal rates, while not racially explicit, are carrying the pattern of exclusion forward.

Recent data shows that applicants across almost all permanent and temporary resident categories, skilled workers, international students, grandparents and refugees, are facing more rejections. Immigration officials and political leaders point to policy integrity, institutional capacity and shifting targets. But these procedural justifications obscure a more unsettling truth: our immigration system is shifting from openness toward restriction, prioritizing exclusion over welcome.

As a migration scholar as well as an immigrant myself, I know that exclusion doesn’t always arrive with bold legal declarations. It often hides in plain sight, through administrative hurdles, opaque rules, and decisions that are hard to explain but easy to feel.

One clear example we have all experienced collectively across Canada is the demonization of international students. In the past two years, federal policy changes dramatically capped their numbers, blamed them for historical housing and health care shortages and limited their ability to stay.

This framing fuelled hateful online commentary, targeted in-person violent hate crimes and attacks, and even anti-immigrant posters, such as one spotted near a college in Toronto’s Roncesvalles neighbourhood that used multiculturalism to justify xenophobia.

Another example is a spike in Express Entry rejections for permanent residency when applicants declare an “nonaccompanying” spouse. This tactic, once common and legal, is now treated by officers as a sign of dishonesty, triggering procedural fairness letters or outright refusal. This shift is not in the law but in how rules are interpreted and enforced.

The numbers tell a broader story. In just two years, rejection rates for all temporary resident categories have increased 10 to 27 per cent. For example, rejection rates for student permits rose to 65 per cent from 41 per cent and work permits for spouses to study and work rose to 52 per cent from 25 per cent. While visitor visas rose to 50 per cent from 39 per cent.

Then there are the persistent disparities in approval rates for applicants from the Global South. African students, in particular, have long faced disproportionate rejection. Parliamentary testimony revealed that French-speaking African students can face refusal rates as high as 80 to 83 per cent, among the highest of any group, often because officers doubt their “intent” to return home after studying.

A 2024 MPOWER Financing report found that fewer than half of African student visa applications are approved, with rates dropping to 22 per cent for some Francophone African countries. Earlier analyses of IRCC data by the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants showed that from 205 to 2020, Nigeria’s approval rate was 12 per cent. These decisions, couched in bureaucratic language, reproduce long-standing patterns of racial and regional bias, sending a powerful message about who is seen as credible future Canadians, and who is not.

To be clear, today’s policies are not the same as the 1923 Chinese Exclusion Act, which was explicit, racist, and devastating for Chinese Canadian families. But we would be naïve to think that exclusion only happens when written in black and white legislation.

As Catherine Clement’s recent book ”The Paper Trail to the 1923 Chinese Exclusion Act” shows, policy is not just about law, it’s about how it’s felt, lived, and remembered. Her work documents how exclusion operated through bureaucratic delays, suspicion, and silence, separating families for lifetimes and squandering human potential.

What we are seeing today is different, but still worth naming: a shift toward discretion-based refusal, especially for applicants from racialized countries and communities. When exclusion becomes procedural, it becomes harder to see, challenge or measure.

Immigration, at its best, is a promise: that those who qualify will be treated fairly, and that our system reflect our values. My own family benefited from that promise and was able to live the Canadian dream. But rising rejection rates, unclear standards, and a lack of transparency undermine that promise. If we want to preserve the integrity of our immigration system, we must first preserve its fairness.

That starts with publishing disaggregated refusal statistics, improving officer training, clarifying communication with applicants, and creating accountability mechanisms when discretion oversteps reason. Above all, it requires a public conversation that resists easy answers and considers the human cost of policy shifts.

We tell ourselves that we’ve moved past the kind of exclusion Catherine Clement documents so powerfully. But history doesn’t just live in museums, it echoes in policy, in silence, and in the decisions we choose not to question.

We still have time to course correct. But it will take political courage, public awareness, and a willingness to look critically at what our systems are doing, not just what they claim to do. Canada must resist creeping exclusion and remain a place of opportunity, or Gold Mountain (金山) the Chinese nickname for Canada.

Source: Opinion | Canada’s immigration approach is becoming more exclusionary. It’s not the direction we should be heading

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , ,

Courts unlikely to provide fifth extension to Ottawa to address Lost Canadians before November, says immigration lawyer

2025/07/15 Leave a comment

Extension unlikely to be needed as adequate time in fall session. Government should improve C-3 by adding a time limit of five-years to meet the 1,095 day physical presence requirement, not the current open ended provision (the Don Chapman specific airline pilot example in contrast to the vast majority of likely applicants):

Parliament needs to “just get on with it” and address the issue of “lost Canadians” through amendments to the Canada Citizenship Act, according to Jenny Kwan, NDP critic of citizenship and immigration.

She told The Hill Times that she wonders if a judge would have the patience to grant the federal government a fifth extension on a court order requiring action before the current November deadline.

“This is astounding. What the current situation is right now is that Canada’s Citizenship Act,
with respect to lost Canadians, is in violation of the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms], and [Bill
C-3] will make it Charter-compliant,” said Kwan (VancouverEast, B.C.).

“I don’t know how much patience [the judge] will have to continue to see delays in the
passage of the bill to make it Charter-compliant.”

Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab (Halifax West, N.S.) tabled Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), in the House on June 5. The House rose for the summer on June 20, pausing the bill’s progress until Sept. 15, when the next parliamentary sitting begins.

If passed, the bill would reverse a change to the Citizenship Act made by then-Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper in 2009 that introduced a “first-generation limit” when it came to citizenship status. Since that 2009 amendment, a Canadian citizen who was born outside of Canada cannot pass citizenship status on to their child if that child was also born or adopted outside the country.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared in December 2023, that the first-generation limit was unconstitutional on the grounds that it unjustifiably limited mobility and equality rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At that time, the Court gave the federal government a deadline of six months to fix the law through legislation. This deadline was later extended on four occasions, with the current deadline set as Nov. 20, 2025.

Kwan described Bill C-3 as “a significant piece of legislation that needs to be done,” in an interview with The Hill Times. The bill is nearly identical to the former Bill C-71, which was introduced in May 2024, but died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued on Jan. 6, 2025.

Kwan argued that a Conservative filibuster in the fall sitting that delayed progress in the House contributed to death of Bill C-71. “Basically, nothing got through, and [Bill C-71] also died on the order paper. So, in this round, it will depend on whether or not the Conservatives will continue to play political games ahead of lost Canadians,” said Kwan.

The Hill Times reached out to Conservative MPs including citizenship and immigration critic
Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, Alta.) and Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, Sask.), a member of the House citizenship committee, but did not receive a response by deadline.

Bill C-3 would amend the Citizenship Act to automatically grant Canadian citizenship to anyone who would be a citizen today were it not for the first-generation limit. The bill would also introduce a “substantial connection test” for Canadian citizens born outside of Canada who wish to pass on citizenship to their children born abroad. Going forward, the bill would allow access to citizenship beyond the first generation, so long as the parent has spent at least 1,095 cumulative—not necessarily consecutive—days in Canada prior to the birth of their child.

Redekopp told the House on June 19 that Conservatives have significant issues with Bill C-3, and criticized the substantial connection test of 1,095 non-consecutive days as “not substantial at all.”

“It is a very weak way to commit to being a Canadian citizen and then to confer that citizenship onto children. It is not a real test of commitment because the days do not have to be consecutive,” Redekopp told the House. “Also, people need to understand the current situation in our country. They need to live here to understand how things are and some of the issues we have right now in our country … People do not know that if they are living in another country.”

Kwan argued that objections to the non-consecutive 1,095-day minimum don’t make sense.

“Take, for example, a person who’s a pilot, right? You travel all the time. You could be a seond-generation born and you’re a pilot. You fly out of Canada regularly as a pilot, and then that means you’re leaving Canada all the time. So, does that mean to say that they can never get a Canadian citizenship? That doesn’t make any sense at all,” she said.

“You have to recognize the fact that we live in a global society now. Canada is a global country, and people move. You have to make sure that is addressed in such a way that fits the times of today.”…

Source: Courts unlikely to provide fifth extension to Ottawa to address Lost Canadians before November, says immigration lawyer

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Theo Argitis: Canada’s great immigration experiment is ending 

2025/06/20 Leave a comment

Good take:

For nearly the first time in our history, Canada’s population growth has come to a near standstill. Remarkably, the state of things is such that we are celebrating this as a policy success and long-overdue correction.

Statistics Canada released its quarterly population estimates, showing the country grew by 20,000 people in the first three months of this year. That’s the third weakest quarterly increase in data going back to 1946—and less than one-tenth the average quarterly gain over the past three years.

Four provinces and one territory—Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and Yukon—actually posted population declines.

The numbers reflect the dramatic reversal of policy late last year by the former Trudeau government, when it abruptly tightened permit approvals for international students and foreign workers after overseeing record immigration levels since 2021.

Under the plan, the intake of new permanent residents, or what the government calls immigrants, would be lowered from 485,000 in 2024 to 365,000 by 2027.

The number of non-permanent residents living in Canada—which had increased five-fold since 2015 to more than 3 million—would be cut by about one million over two years.

That post-pandemic rush of newcomers exacerbated housing shortages, strained public services, and disrupted the job market. It was perhaps the worst policy error of the past two decades, and in need of correction.

But, ironically, the sharp reversal in policy is now creating its own problems, impacting everything from demand for cell phones and banking services to funding for universities and colleges.

The whole episode has been a mass social experiment that will be studied for years.

“You’re going to see a ton of research on this, no question, because it’s like this little experiment here in Canada that no other country has done to this extent,’’ said Mikal Skuterud, a labour economist at the University of Waterloo and director of the Canadian Labour Economics Forum. “And there’s all kinds of dimensions to how this impacted the economy.”

The latest numbers suggest the government’s curbs are beginning to work. While still elevated, the number of non-permanent residents has started to decline—down almost 90,000 from its peak in September. The number of permanent residents, or immigrants, is now running at an annual pace closer to 400,000, down from nearly half a million.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has essentially adopted the Trudeau plan, which if successful will keep the current population steady at about the current 41.5 million level over the next two years. It would mark the first time since Confederation in 1867 that the country saw zero population growth.

Yet when viewed over the full horizon, the curbs will simply bring the average population growth rate for the decade back to about 1.3 percent, which is much closer to historical norms. We’re simply correcting a major policy anomaly.

Looking back, it’s too early to know for certain what effect the population surge had on wages and joblessness, according to Skuterud, who notes that younger Canadians, in particular, may have borne the brunt of it, given they tend to compete with newcomers for entry-level jobs.

What’s less in dispute is how the immigration surge lowered average living standards.

The evidence suggests that looser entry requirements over recent years brought in lower quality workers. Because of this, the economy failed to grow in line with population. The size of the pie didn’t grow fast enough to keep up with the number of people trying to take a slice.

The end result was the erosion of public confidence in immigration, which could linger in Canadian politics for years.

This is particularly true among younger Canadians, who now appear more open to curbing immigration levels. For many, tighter labour markets and more affordable housing—not higher population numbers—are the priority. Slower immigration supports those goals.

So, how did the government misjudge the situation so badly? And is there a lesson here for the Carney government?

Part of the problem stemmed from the unique distortions of the pandemic. The government overestimated labour shortages and then overcompensated by opening the immigration floodgates.

But there was also a broader miscalculation. Trudeau emerged from the pandemic with renewed ambitions and a belief that he had an expanded mandate to pursue transformative change, including on the immigration front.

Ambition, however, has a way of outpacing reality. And overshooting is always a risk when leaders grow too confident in their ability to enact change.

Carney is now putting forward an ambitious agenda of his own. Whether he’ll draw any lessons from Canada’s great immigration experiment remains to be seen.

Source: Theo Argitis: Canada’s great immigration experiment is ending

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Lalande | Here is a two-step plan to rebuild Canada’s economy and it isn’t centred on our natural resources

2025/06/13 Leave a comment

Step One repeats the previous tired messages, Step Two looks more sensibly looks forward on how to capitalize on the Trump administrations attacks on universities, scientists and researchers:

Canada’s premiers and prime minister want the world to know that they are ready to build: pipelines, a revitalized military, new high-speed transit, an energy corridor.

But if Canada is to build a truly national economy and to effectively respond to the Trump administration’s economic instability and isolation, it needs a larger, more skilled, and more adaptive workforce.

And there is a clear, achievable two-step strategy we must take to get there.

Step One

The first strategy is to reverse course on the government’s immigration cuts and to build a smart, long-term population strategy.

Last fall, the federal government announced a 20 per cent reduction in immigration levels in its 2025—2027 levels plan. It was a short-term political decision that will leave long-term economic scarring. Research from the Parliamentary Budget Officer shows this policy will reduce Canada’s nominal GDP by $37 billion over just three years. As detailed in Century Initiative’s latest report, cutting immigration accelerates economic decline by constricting labour supply and choking growth.

This contraction is unfolding against the backdrop of a demographic “perfect storm”: a rapidly aging population, a declining fertility rate, and severe labour shortages across critical sectors.

We can’t build the strongest economy in the G7 if our workforce is shrinking, particularly in high-growth sectors.

Canada cannot navigate this storm without a serious plan. We need strategic, well-managed immigration designed not only to meet immediate gaps but to build the long-term foundation for shared prosperity.

Realizing this vision will require purposeful collaboration between different levels of government, including building on intergovernmental successes like the provincial nominee program. Further, business, academia, and civil society all have a role to play leveraging their respective reach, resources, and networks.

This is the plan that enables every other plan. Infrastructure. National defence. Clean tech. Housing. None of it is possible without a strong tax base and a skilled, growing talent pool.

Step Two

The second strategy is to launch a targeted U.S. talent attraction strategy.

Flagrant and damaging threats from the Trump administration against Harvard and other academic institutions, the defunding of research institutions like the National Science Foundation, the gutting of visa programs, and the political targeting of international students have all weakened America’s standing as a magnet for innovation.

Taken together, these actions have opened the door in the global war for talent. As the saying goes, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

But we ought to capitalize on that mistake. As the U.S. turns inward, we should position ourselves as a global safe haven for scientists, entrepreneurs, and students who no longer feel welcome — or funded — south of the border.

This means being strategic about research opportunities, targeting U.S. universities with visa programs and recruitment campaigns for high-performing graduates. 

While appropriately managing international student capacity, we should simplify employment pathways for international students and postdocs in tech, AI, clean energy, and health sciences.

Settlement services should be rolled out in partnership with cross-border companies who are willing to relocate here. And regional accelerator hubs should bolster our fastest-growing sectors — connecting immigration, innovation, and talent with opportunity.

Canada’s greatest asset isn’t just our natural resources or trade deals — it’s our ability to build a fair, open, future-ready society. That takes people. And in this moment, when the U.S. is retreating from talent, science, and global leadership, we have the opportunity — and responsibility — to step up.

Source: Opinion | Here is a two-step plan to rebuild Canada’s economy and it isn’t centred on our natural resources

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , ,

Bonner: Repairing the fray: Improving immigration and citizenship policy in Canada

2025/05/28 Leave a comment

Hard to understand why a former staffer with exposure to immigration issues, could advance such naive, politically and in some cases, judicially unrealistic proposals in response to some of the legitimate policy concerns and failures that he points out.

Some examples. Government reorganization into a super ministry would result in significant transition processes and distract from substantive issues. Would any international campaign focussed on values discourage those with other values? No country has had success with pro-birth strategies. Differential time requirements for citizenship would be Charter non-compliant:

….Immigration has been a good thing in the past. It should be in the present and future, too.

This study has three main parts: (1) an exposition of the economic and cultural challenges of mass immigration (including a short history of immigration policy in Canada), (2) a comparative analysis of other immigration systems that we can learn from, and (3) a series of policy options for improving the Canadian system.

To repair Canada’s frayed immigration system, this study makes the case for the following recommendations:

1. Lower the annual permanent residency target to a more manageable level (e.g. 200,000).

2. Strengthen the process of deportation for any non-citizen found guilty of violent crime, supporting terrorism, or expressing hatred for Canada.

3. Execute an international campaign to discourage immigration by anyone unwilling or unable to respect our founding cultures and unwilling or unable to integrate.

4. Prioritize international students pursuing courses of study of high importance to our labour market and supply chains.

5. Re-engineer the points system to emphasize language, age, and domestic education.

6. Consolidate all “population” ministries to create the Ministry of Human Resources Canada (MHRC).

7. Make the main mandate of MHRC to ensure that economic immigration serves the national interest.

8. Require MHRC to implement a pro-birth strategy.

9. Lengthen the time requirement for citizenship, except for immigrants from peer English- and French-speaking countries.

10. Phase down and abolish the Temporary Foreign Worker Program permanently.

11. Establish a uniform standard of credential recognition in self-regulating professions and skilled trades.

We have the right and the obligation to raise the value of Canadian citizenship, and to demand more of our citizens. Above all, however, efforts at integration should proceed not from a dislike of other places, but from a love for Canada….

Source: Repairing the fray: Improving immigration and citizenship policy in Canada

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , ,

← Older posts