C-3 Citizenship by Descent: Senate Report Observations

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has the honour to present its

As expected, sailed through without amendments. Observations focussed on inter country adoptees (more of an recognition and identify issue than a practical one, as adoptees would have to live in the province of adoption and thus meet the residency test) and the need for modernization of the Citizenship Act. No concern about the operational impact and the data gaps (unfortunately, as expected):

SECOND REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, November 6, 2025, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment but with certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

ROSEMARY MOODIE

Chair

Observations to the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Bill C-3)

Bill C-3 represents meaningful progress in addressing injustices faced by many “Lost Canadians.” However, your Committee notes a continuing gap affecting some intercountry adoptees: children born abroad, adopted by Canadian parents living in Canada, and brought into the country through a rigorous and highly regulated adoption process governed by provincial/territorial laws and international obligations, including the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.

Your Committee therefore encourages the Government of Canada to undertake further study and consider targeted legislative reforms to ensure that all intercountry adoptees are treated equivalently to Canadian-born adopted children with respect to citizenship acquisition and transmission.

Your Committee observes that the Citizenship Act has become increasingly complex and difficult for Canadians to understand. Given the many piecemeal amendments over decades, the Act would benefit from comprehensive modernization, including the adoption of plain-language drafting techniques.

Simplifying the Act would enhance public understanding, reduce administrative burdens, and ensure that Canadians can more easily know and exercise their citizenship rights and responsibilities.

Your Committee notes that Bill C-3 resolves many long-standing inequities relating to Lost Canadians but does not fully address all categories of affected persons.

Your Committee therefore encourages further study to identify remaining gaps and to support the development of future legislation that ensures all Canadians — whether by birth, adoption, or descent — are treated with fairness, consistency, and dignity.

Source: C-3 Citizenship by Descent: Senate Report Observations

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:

C-71 Senate SOCI Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: C-71 Senate SOCI Report

Media coverage focused on extension of court deadline:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preparing for a Conservative government in the public service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-71 – The need for a timeframe limit: My submission to the Senate’s SOCI

The Senate will be starting its review of Bill C-71, the government bill replacing the first generation cut-off for citizenship transmission, by a residency test for the second generation born abroad. The Senate will conduct its review this week prior to the House of Commons given that the House is effectively shut down.

I will be testifying on December 4th.

Please find attached my written submission, arguing for a same time limit of five years to meet the 1,095 day residency requirement as is the case for permanent residents applying for citizenship, and for IRCC to prepare and share its analysis of the likely number of persons affected and the operational impacts along with associated costs. (My own analysis is included in the submission).

I hope you find it interesting.

Meeting notice: The subject matter of Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024)

Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (SOCI) Report on C-6 Citizenship Act Changes

The text of the committee report, dated 7 March 2017. presented to the full Senate for Third Reading:

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, has, in obedience to the order of reference of December 15, 2016, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Your committee has also made certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

KELVIN KENNETH OGILVIE, Chair

Observations to the Tenth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Bill C-6)

Language Exemptions: The committee observes a need for greater flexibility to allow exemptions to the language and knowledge testing requirements in order to obtain citizenship. While Bill C-6 makes changes to the age group that is required to take language and knowledge tests, there are other exceptional circumstances that can prevent a person from learning English or French which are not addressed by the bill. These circumstances may involve social, or physical and mental health factors. The committee heard that people from different socio-economic backgrounds have differential ability and capacity to acquire a new language. The committee suggests that the scope and accessibility of exemptions to language and knowledge testing should be reviewed with the goal of ensuring that applicants do not experience unreasonable delays or hardship to obtain citizenship.

Smart Permanent Resident Cards: During the committee’s hearings on Bill C-6, the committee was made aware that keeping a record of residency requirements would be easier with “smart” Permanent Resident Cards. The committee heard from one witness that the benefit of the smart card system is the maintenance of an accurate record of a person’s time spent in Canada would be kept. This will allow for more transparency on citizenship applications. Therefore, the committee urges the government to review and consider the implementation of a smart card residency program.

Fees: The committee also notes that citizenship application fees are rising at an accelerated pace. In February 2014, an individual application fee cost $100. Today, the cost is $530. This is more than a 500 per cent increase. There is an additional $100 right of citizenship fee. Altogether, the cost to acquire citizenship for a family of four with two minor children is $1,460. When extra costs such as language training and testing are taken into consideration, the costs are much higher. High citizenship fees can present a significant financial burden to potential applicants, and could act as a barrier for traditionally low income groups such as those with disabilities, single mothers and minorities. To ensure that potential applicants are not barred from citizenship based solely on their income, the committee advises the government to consider lowering these fees.

Source: Report details – Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology