In 2006, war broke out between Hezbollah and Israel, resulting in the Canadian government intervening to bring some 15,000 Lebanese-Canadians to safety.
The evacuation effort proved costly. Financially, politically, socially, and constitutionally.
According to a report by the Senate, the operation cost Canadian taxpayers up to $94 million. Under normal circumstances, this would be standard fare as the Government of Canada has a duty to protect its citizens both domestically and internationally.
What made this effort controversial, however, was the public sentiment that many of the evacuees had weak ties to Canada and were in essence, “Canadians of convenience.”
The operation was subject to intense media scrutiny and in 2008, the federal government felt it needed to save face by introducing Bill C-37 to reform the Citizenship Act and crack down on these so-called Canadians of convenience.
Prior to Bill C-37 taking effect, a Canadian born abroad could also pass on citizenship to their children born abroad.
The reform introduced a second-generation cut-off, whereby Canadian citizenship could be passed on only once, to first-generation Canadians (i.e., a Canadian could pass on citizenship to children born abroad but their grandchildren would no longer have the same right if they were also born outside Canada). This resulted in a generation of “Lost Canadians,” those who either lost Canadian citizenship or who were no longer eligible for it due to the 2008 reform.
This had significant social consequences as it resulted in hardship for second-generation Canadians since they were no longer automatically eligible for citizenship and needed to navigate the immigration system if they wanted to gain permanent residence and eventually citizenship.
It also had a disproportionately negative social impact on women. Canadian women born abroad would need to decide between remaining in Canada to have children or moving abroad (e.g., for education, work, or other reasons). The CBC reported the story of Emma Kenyon, a Canadian who was born in Japan and raised in Canada. She moved with her husband to Hong Kong and while pregnant, was advised by Canadian government officials to return to Canada to have the baby if she wanted to pass on citizenship, something which was physically risky, and also unfeasible due to her job in Hong Kong and the coronavirus pandemic.
This gendered aspect was recently recognized by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In a Constitutional challenge (Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada), the court ruled just before Christmas 2023 that the second-generation cut-off provision was unconstitutional. The court agreed the provision had created a second-class of Canadian citizenship and discriminated on the basis of gender since it limited the ability of women to travel abroad when they were ready to have children.
The court gave the federal government 30 days to appeal the ruling and six months to amend the Citizenship Act.
In January, Immigration Minister Marc Miller announced his government would not appeal the ruling and on May 23, he introduced a bill to amend the Citizenship Act. (See video below).
An argument will be made we are devaluing Canadian citizenship, but this argument is unfounded for several reasons.
Countries with stronger national identities and more restrictive citizenship policies offer even more generous citizenship policies to multi-generation families. For example, an estimated 17 countries in the European Union offer citizenship to grandchildren, great grandchildren, or sometimes even more distant relatives.
Canada is not saying that the overseas children of Canadians born abroad will simply be entitled to citizenship, but rather that entitlement will exist if the parents born abroad can prove they have ties to Canada. The proof of ties will be demonstrated by the Canadian parent showing they have lived in Canada for at least 1,095 days (the same number of days a permanent resident must reside in the country to be eligible for citizenship). When compared to certain European Union countries, Canada’s reform is actually quite restrictive.
The more important counter-argument, however, is the existing provision in the Citizenship Act is unconstitutional. Canadians have no control over where they are born. At some point in our lives, though, we have agency on what we wish to do and we make the choice as to whether we want to maintain ties with Canada. Due to the 2008 reform, a person born in Canada could go abroad and have children, and pass citizenship over to them. But, a person born abroad, who then returned to Canada, established ties, did not have the same flexibility to then travel abroad and have children. Both parents in this example were equally Canadian. They lived in the country, paid taxes, voted, and contributed in other ways. Yet the status of their Canadian citizenship was not equal.
The 2008 change also didn’t pass the common sense test. As another example of the preposterous consequences, a child born inside Canada to a non-Canadian could spend the rest of their lives abroad and yet still be able to pass on Canadian citizenship. Yet, a child born abroad, who grew up in Canada would not have the same luxury.
An unknowable amount of taxpayer dollars has been wasted introducing and passing the 2008 change, and then the federal government subsequently defending it in court, and now reforming it again. During the Ontario Superior Court proceedings, the federal government argued in favour of upholding the Citizenship Act provisions, only to then change its mind earlier this year by saying it would accept the Superior Court’s ruling. If people are going to be upset about the $85 million spent on the 2006 evacuation then it would be consistent to also be upset about taxpayer money being wasted on passing, upholding, defending, and then reforming an unconstitutional law.
The financial costs at this point, however, are immaterial. Justice has been served and Miller announced a series of remedies for Lost Canadians.
Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024) seeks to restore citizenship to Lost Canadians and also provide citizenship to the descendents of Lost Canadians to anyone born abroad to a Canadian parent in the second or subsequent generations, before the legislation comes into force. Once the law comes into force, parents born abroad who have or adopt children also born outside Canada will need to have spent at least 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada prior to the birth or adoption of their child to pass on citizenship.
With Canada’s Parliament set to recess for the summer next month, it is likely that the study of Bill C-71 will commence towards the end of 2024. The Bill is supported by the NDP, and hence the Liberal-NDP minority government should be able to easily pass it by June 2025 at the latest.