Library of Parliament


This document was prepared by the staff of the Parliamentary Research Branch to provide Canadian Parliamentarians with plain language background and analysis of proposed government legislation. Legislative summaries are not government documents. They have no official legal status and do not constitute legal advice or opinion. Please note, the Legislative Summary describes the bill as of the date shown at the beginning of the document. For the latest published version of the bill, please consult the parliamentary internet site at www.parl.gc.ca.


LS-330E

 

BILL C-63:  THE CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT

 

Prepared by:
Margaret Young
Law and Government Division
5 January 1999
Revised 14 May 1999


 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF BILL C-63

 

HOUSE OF COMMONS

SENATE

Bill Stage Date Bill Stage Date
First Reading:

7 December 1998

First Reading:  
Second Reading:

1 March 1999

Second Reading:  
Committee Report:

14 May 1999

Committee Report:  
Report Stage:   Report Stage:  
Third Reading:   Third Reading:  


Royal Assent:
Statutes of Canada







N.B. Any substantive changes in this Legislative Summary which have been made since the preceding issue are indicated in bold print.

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND

DESCRIPTION

   A. Interpretation (Clause 2)

   B. The Right to Citizenship (Clauses 3 - 12; Clause 14)
      1. Birth on Canadian Soil
      2. Derivative Citizenship
      3. Citizenship by Naturalization
         a. Residency
         b. Knowledge of an Official Language and of Canada
      4. Children Adopted Abroad
      5. Deeming Permanent Residence

   C. Loss of Citizenship
      1. Derivative Citizenship
      2. Renunciation and Revocation
      3. Annulment Orders

   D. Restoration of Citizenship (Clauses 19 - 20)

   E. Prohibitions (Clauses 21 - 28)
      1. Denial of Citizenship in the Public Interest
      2. Denial of Citizenship on National Security Grounds (Clauses 23 - 27)
      3. Denial of Citizenship on Other Grounds (Clause 28)

   F. Administration (Clauses 29 - 38; Clause 44)
      1. Citizenship Commissioners
      2. Certificates (Clauses 35 - 38)
      3. Offences (Clauses 39 - 42)
      4. Regulations (Clause 43)
      5. Delegation of Minister’s Powers (Clause 44)
      6. Disclosure (Clause 45)

   G. Status of Certain Persons in Canada (Clauses 47 - 54)

   H. Transitional and Consequential Amendments (Clauses 55 - 68);
        Repeal and Coming into Force (Clauses 69 and 70)

   I. The Oath of Citizenship (Schedule)

COMMENTARY

   A. Changes to the Residency Requirement

   B. Knowledge of Canada

   C. Children Adopted Abroad


BILL C-63:  THE CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT

 

Bill C-63, An Act respecting Canadian citizenship, received first reading in the House of Commons on 7 December 1998. The bill would modernize outdated parts of the citizenship law, strengthen and clarify some provisions that have been contentious, replace current procedures with a new administrative structure, and introduce some additional powers to deny citizenship. It would also introduce measures to emphasize the importance of citizenship. The new Act would repeal and replace the current Citizenship Act.

BACKGROUND

Prior to 1947 and the introduction of the first Canadian Citizenship Act, there was legally no such thing as Canadian citizenship. Both native-born and naturalized citizens were British subjects. In 1977, the current Citizenship Act came into force, making extensive changes to the law. Citizenship became more widely available, since the Act, for example, reduced the required period of residency from five to three years as well as removing the special treatment for British nationals and the remaining discrimination between men and women.(1) The 1977 Act also provided that Canadians could hold dual citizenship, reversing the previous situation in which Canadian citizenship was lost upon the acquisition of the citizenship of another country. Although minor amendments have been made to Canada’s citizenship law over the years, Bill C-63 represents the first major overhaul of it since 1977.

The changes have been a long time coming. In early 1987, the government announced plans to bring in amendments to the Act, and issued a discussion paper entitled Proud to Be Canadian which outlined a number of issues and options for change and called for public comment. No further significant parliamentary action was taken at that time, however.

The Liberal government elected in 1993 announced its intention to overhaul the Act, and asked for the advice of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The resulting Committee report, Canadian Citizenship: A Sense of Belonging, was presented to the House of Commons in June 1994. It raised a number of issues now addressed in Bill C-63, as well as some others that have not been included.

DESCRIPTION

Bill C-63 contains many features that are identical or very similar to the existing provisions in the law. The description of the bill in this section will therefore concentrate on proposed provisions that would differ from those in the current Act.

   A. Interpretation (Clause 2)

Two provisions in the interpretation section of the bill are of interest. Clause 2(2)(b) deals with Indians who are registered under the Indian Act, but who are not citizens. The bill proposes that such individuals who chose to become citizens (likely to be few in number) would on registration be deemed to be permanent residents, thereby allowing them to begin the naturalization process.

The other provision of note is clause 2(2)(c), under which a person would be said to reside in Canada on any day when he or she was physically present in Canada and not subject to a probation order, on parole or incarcerated. The implications of this provision will be discussed in more detail below.

   B. The Right to Citizenship (Clauses 3 – 12; Clause 14)

      1. Birth on Canadian Soil

Bill C-63 would continue the current rule that children born in Canada are Canadian citizens at birth (clause 4(1)(a)). The only exceptions (as now) would apply to the children of foreign diplomats and their employees (clause 4(2)).

      2. Derivative Citizenship

Currently, any person born abroad of a Canadian parent is automatically a citizen. This concept is often called derivative citizenship. Second and subsequent generations born abroad are also automatically citizens, but they lose their citizenship unless, by age 28, they have registered and have either lived in Canada for one year immediately prior to the application or have established a substantial connection to Canada. The bill would limit the possibility of automatic citizenship to the second generation born abroad, and would place more onerous requirements on such individuals seeking to retain citizenship past the age of 28 (clause 4(1)(b)). Clause 14 specifies that the person would have to apply to retain citizenship and would have to have resided in Canada for at least 1,095 days (a total of three years) during the six years before the application. As will be discussed below, actual physical presence would be required during the three-year period. This would be the same residency requirement to be placed on all permanent residents wishing to become citizens.

To mitigate the potential statelessness that might befall the third generation born abroad, clause 11 would provide that citizenship would be granted, upon application, to a person under 28 years of age who had never acquired (or did not have the right to acquire) any country’s citizenship but who had been born abroad to a parent who was a Canadian citizen. To qualify, the person would be required to have spent at least three years of the preceding six in Canada, and must not have been convicted of an offence against national security. What such an offence might be is not specified and there is no such specific category of offence in either the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act or the Criminal Code.

      3. Citizenship by Naturalization

         a. Residency

Bill C-63 would introduce a number of changes to the requirements for attaining citizenship other than by birth. One of the most important of these would add precision to the residency requirement. The important change would be the definition of residence as physical presence in Canada (clause 2(2)(c)). As originally introduced, the bill provided that a permanent resident would be required to reside for a total of three years (1,095 days) out of the five years (currently four) preceding the application (clause 6(1)(b)). The current provision allowing an applicant credit for time spent in the country before becoming a permanent resident would have been eliminated.(2) In committee, the bill was amended to extend from five years to six the proposed period within which an applicant could accumulate residence, while another amendment restored the credit for time spent in the country, limiting it to lawful presence. An exception to the physical residency requirement would be made for the foreign spouses of Canadian citizens working abroad with the Canadian armed forces, the federal public service, or the public service of a province (clause 6(2)).

The proposed objective residency requirement – actual physical presence for a total of three years (1,095 days) within the specified period – would end the considerable uncertainty in the current law. Although the Act currently requires a three-year period of residency, that word is not defined. As a result, judicial decisions with radically differing interpretations of the residency requirement have seriously complicated the law. The very year after the current Act came into effect in 1977, a case decided by the Federal Court held that actual physical presence in Canada was not necessary in order to fulfil the requirements.(3) What was needed, the judge held, was that the applicant show a significant attachment to Canada throughout the period, even if physically absent. This could be established by such indicators as a retained residence (although not essential), accounts in Canadian banks, investments, club memberships, provincial driving licences, and so on. The result, in its extreme form, has been that some applicants have been granted Canadian citizenship even though their total time actually in the country amounted to mere days or a few months.

Other judges of the Federal Court, however, disagreed strongly with that approach and were unwilling to excuse lengthy absences from the country. The contradictory caselaw that developed around this issue led to unpredictability and uncertainty in the law, and in the view of some, seriously compromised the residency requirement, and the value of Canadian citizenship in the process. The 1994 report of the Standing Committee recommended that the definition of residency in the Act should require a meaningful degree of physical presence.

         b. Knowledge of an Official Language and of Canada

Bill C-63 would continue the requirement for applicants to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of an official language (clause 6(1)(c)). Applicants would also continue to be required to demonstrate that they had an adequate knowledge of Canada and the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship (clause 6(1)(d)). Currently, applicants are permitted to use an interpreter for this purpose. Bill C-63 as originally introduced, however, would have required them to demonstrate their knowledge of Canada in one of the official languages. This provision was removed in committee. Lest either requirement prove too onerous for certain individuals (perhaps the aged or house-bound), the power of the Minister to waive the language requirements on compassionate grounds would continue. (Both tests are currently waived for people over 60, and the Minister stated that this would continue to be the case.)

      4. Children Adopted Abroad

New provisions would govern the citizenship rules for Canadian citizens’ children adopted abroad (clause 8). Under the current law, children adopted abroad are required to become permanent residents before proceeding to citizenship. This has several implications. First, it means that the children must pass the medical exam required of all applicants for permanent residence, or receive special permission to proceed.(4) (They must also pass the statutory criminal and security checks.) Second, it means that children adopted by Canadian parents who are living abroad and who wish to continue doing so cannot become permanent residents and, therefore, cannot become Canadian citizens.

Bill C-63 would provide that a minor adopted abroad in accordance with the laws of the countries of both the child and the parents would become a Canadian citizen upon application. Three additional provisions would also apply: the adoption would have to have been in the best interests of the child (added in committee); it would have to have created a genuine relationship of parent and child; and it must not have been undertaken in order to circumvent any requirements for admission to Canada or for citizenship. The original provision that the new rules would apply only to adoptions that took place after they came into force was changed in committee; the rules would now apply to all adoptions that took place after 14 February 1977.

During discussion in committee, and subsequently in the press, questions were raised as to the scope and meaning of the amendment requiring an adoption to have been in the best interests of the child. Departmental officials explained the proposed change as a way of meeting the concerns of the provinces, which were said to centre on medical examinations. Officials stated that the additional criterion would permit broader and more complete regulation of the adoption/citizenship process, including the power to require medical examinations and home studies.

      5. Deeming Permanent Residence

Clause 10 would introduce a new provision whereby the Minister, "for the purposes of the Act" (that is, in order to grant citizenship), could deem a person who had resided in Canada for at least 10 years to be a permanent resident. This provision would cover cases in which people had erroneously believed themselves to be Canadian citizens. The proposed provision would give explicit authority for actions currently taken under section 2(2) of the Act.

   C. Loss of Citizenship (Clauses 13 – 18)

      1. Derivative Citizenship

The loss of derivative citizenship (clause 14) has been discussed in the previous section.

      2. Renunciation and Revocation

As in the current law, Bill C-63 sets out the circumstances under which a person could renounce Canadian citizenship (clause 15). The criteria would be very similar. The renunciation could be revoked, as could a grant or resumption of citizenship, if it were later found that the person had obtained, renounced or resumed citizenship by false representation or fraud or by concealing material circumstances (clause 16). It should be noted that the current Act refers to the person "knowingly concealing material circumstances." Bill C-63 as originally introduced would have dropped the word "knowingly," which would have made revocation easier. The word was restored, however, in committee. A new provision (clause 16(4)) would have provided that orders revoking the citizenship of a person could also name any person whose citizenship had been acquired through that person; this would have applied to children. Witnesses criticized this clause in committee and it was dropped.

The current mechanism for challenging a revocation order would remain essentially the same (clause 17). Upon receiving a report from the Minister signifying the intention of the government to revoke citizenship, the person could request the Minister to refer the matter to the Federal Court – Trial Division. New to the process would be the requirement for the Court to decide the matter on a balance of probabilities (clause 17(1)(b)). This would clear up some conflicting decisions in the Trial Division as to the proper test to apply.

      3. Annulment Orders

In addition to the existing mechanism for revoking citizenship described above, Bill C-63 would give the Minister a new power to issue an annulment order (clause 18). This order could declare that any obtention, retention, renunciation or resumption of citizenship was void. The power would be required to be exercised within five years of the original citizenship decision, and would apply in any case where the person had used a false identity, or had been originally ineligible to be granted citizenship for any of the reasons in clause 28. That clause sets out numerous grounds of ineligibility for citizenship, including: criminality, implication as a war criminal, certain Immigration Act infractions, security concerns, and so on. The person would have to be given notice regarding the proposed order, after which he or she could make written representations to the Minister. An annulment order would signify that the person had never attained citizenship. Thus, anyone who had acquired citizenship through the person whose citizenship had been annulled would automatically lose citizenship also.

The procedure for annulment may be contrasted with the revocation procedure (current and proposed), which involves the Minister, the Governor in Council and, at the request of the person concerned, the Federal Court. In a revocation case, the Court itself has to be satisfied that the person obtained citizenship by false representation, by fraud, or by concealing material circumstances. To do this, the Court holds a full hearing.

It will be remembered that one of the grounds for making the proposed annulment order, the use of a false identity, could easily be comprised in the criteria for revocation -- false representation, fraud, or concealing material circumstances. In the case of an annulment order, however, no appeal would be permitted. Although the decision of the Minister would be reviewable on judicial review to the Federal Court, the grounds of review would be considerably narrower than if an appeal were allowed, and a full hearing would not be held. An amendment adopted in committee specifies that the Minister would have to inform affected persons that the order had been made, and advise them of their right to apply for judicial review.

   D. Restoration of Citizenship (Clauses 19 – 20)

Bill C-63 would continue the current provisions for restoring citizenship, with only a few modifications. Currently, individuals who lose their citizenship must first be admitted for permanent residence, and may apply for citizenship after spending the year immediately before the application in Canada. The bill would instead require individuals in this position to reside in Canada for at least 365 days in the two years immediately preceding the application (clause 19). Again, the important change would be that the new definition of residence would require actual physical presence.

A new provision would ensure that individuals who had lost their citizenship and who were the spouses of Canadian citizens working abroad for the Canadian armed forces, or the federal public service, or the public service of a province would not be penalized because of their non-residence (clause 19(2)). Each day out of the country would still be counted as a day toward the 365 days needed to resume their citizenship.

   E. Prohibitions (Clauses 21 – 28)

      1. Denial of Citizenship in the Public Interest

Bill C-63 would introduce a new power to permit the Governor in Council, upon a report from the Minister, to deny a person citizenship "where there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not in the public interest for the person to become a citizen" (clause 21). The power would not only be new but would also represent a conceptual change from the present law, under which citizenship is a right, not a privilege, providing that objective criteria have been fulfilled. Although there is no definition of "public interest," the new provision might be used, for example, to deny citizenship to an individual known to distribute hate literature but who otherwise fulfilled the criteria.

In order to trigger this section, the Minister would be required to provide the person concerned with a summary of the contents of the proposed report to the Governor in Council. The person would then have 30 days in which to respond in writing to the Minister. If the Minister proceeded with the report, and the Governor in Council agreed, the latter would order citizenship to be denied. The decision of the Cabinet would not be subject to appeal or review by any court, and would be valid for five years. The order would be conclusive proof of the matters stated in it.(5)

      2. Denial of Citizenship on National Security Grounds (Clauses 23 – 27)

Bill C-63 would retain the existing procedures for denying citizenship on national security grounds, with a few changes. As now, the process would be triggered by a report by the Minister to the Security Intelligence Review Committee stating that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the person had engaged or would engage in an activity that was a threat to the security of Canada, or an activity related to organized crime.

Within 10 days of the report to the Review Committee, the person concerned would be informed of it and the possible consequences. The Committee would investigate, using procedures set out in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act; as soon as practicable, the Committee would send the person concerned a summary of the information available to it. In a new provision, the Review Committee would be required to have regard to whether the information could be disclosed without injury to national security or to the safety of persons (clause 23(5)). When it had completed its investigation, the Review Committee would report its conclusion to the Governor in Council and to the person concerned, although not necessarily at the same time.

If for any reason the Review Committee found itself unable to act (for example, if there might be a perception of bias), the amendments to the Act made in 1997 would be continued. They provide that a retired judge would assume the investigation and report to the Governor in Council (clauses 24 – 26).

If the Governor in Council declared that the person was a security risk, the application for citizenship would be rejected. A new provision would specify that such a declaration would be final and not subject to appeal or review by any court.(6) The bill would increase the duration of a declaration from two years to five (clause 27).

      3. Denial of Citizenship on Other Grounds (Clause 28)

Bill C-63 would expand somewhat the list of prohibitions relating to the granting of citizenship. Indictable offences committed outside Canada would now be taken into account and treated in the same way as those committed in Canada. The prohibition regarding offences committed elsewhere would extend to the whole process: being charged with, on trial for, and requesting appeals and reviews of such offences (clause 28(c)). Being convicted of an indictable offence committed abroad (even if the foreign offence had been pardoned) would add at least three years to the time needed to attain citizenship. For the first time, being convicted of two or more summary conviction offences would be considered, and would delay citizenship for one year.

The bill would also preclude citizenship for anyone under a removal order, or subject to an inquiry under the Immigration Act that could lead to removal or the loss of permanent residence status. Clause 28 would also include as prohibitions the procedures previously discussed, such as the revocation, annulment, public interest, and public security processes.

   F. Administration (Clauses 29 – 38; Clause 44)

      1. Citizenship Commissioners

Bill C-63 would introduce major changes in the way citizenship applications are dealt with. The current citizenship judges, headed by a chief judge, would be replaced and their substantive duties taken over by public servants, acting under the delegated authority of the Minister (clause 44). Their ceremonial duties would be taken over by full-time or part-time Citizenship Commissioners, who would be appointed by the Governor in Council, during pleasure, for terms of up to five years (clause 31). The positions would be remunerated. A Senior Citizenship Commissioner could be designated to oversee the Commissioners and coordinate their activities.

In order to be appointed, Citizenship Commissioners would be required to "have demonstrated an understanding of the values of good citizenship and be recognized for their valuable civic contribution" (clause 31(6)). Their duties would be: to preside at citizenship ceremonies; to promote citizenship; to provide the Minister, on request, with advice on citizenship applications, the exercise of the Minister’s discretion, and how best to evaluate citizenship applicants’ knowledge of an official language and of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; and to carry out any directions of the Minister (clause 31(7)). It is not clear how the advisory side of the Commissioners’ mandate would be accomplished, nor why the Commissioners would be particularly well-suited to provide such advice.

Bill C-63 emphasizes the importance of the citizenship ceremony in heightening new citizens’ awareness of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, and would direct Citizenship Commissioners regarding both the purpose and content of the citizenship ceremony (clause 33). Among other duties, Commissioners would be required to:

  • Underline the importance of the ceremony as a milestone in the new citizens’ lives;
  • Ensure that the oath was taken with dignity and solemnity; and
  • Promote a strong sense of civic pride, including respect for the law, the importance of voting and participating in public affairs, and respect and understanding between Canadians.

      2. Certificates (Clauses 35 – 38)

With one exception, the rules regarding the issuance, surrender, cancellation and return of citizenship certificates in these clauses can be found in the present statute or regulations. The bill would add a certificate of renunciation of citizenship upon the approval of a renunciation application (clause 35(2)).

      3. Offences (Clauses 39 – 42)

Bill C-63 would modify one offence provision in the existing law, add a new one to cover citizenship officials, and update the penalties:

  • The offence of trafficking in certificates would be modified by the addition of the words "whether or not for profit" (clause 39(2)(d));

  • Citizenship officials who falsified documents or statements, participated in a bribe, or contravened any part of the Act or of the regulations would be guilty of an offence (clause 40 (1)(a) and (b));

  • Individuals who bribed (or tried to bribe) an official, or impeded a citizenship official or who, not being citizenship officials, pretended to be so, would be guilty of an offence (clause 40(1)(c-e));

  • All offences would be either indictable or summary conviction offences at the election of the Crown;(7)

  • The penalties upon conviction on indictment would be raised to a fine of $10,000 (currently $5,000) or imprisonment for a term of not more than five years (currently three years), or to both; and

  • The three-year limitation period for summary conviction offences would begin to run when the Minister became aware of the matter, not, as now, when the alleged offence took place.

      4. Regulations (Clause 43)

The bill would widen the power of the Governor in Council to make regulations in a number of areas. These areas include:

  • The evidence required for applications, including medical evidence to establish parentage;

  • Who could make an application on behalf of a minor;

  • Waivers of fees;

  • The factors for determining bona fide adoptions and defining what constitutes a relationship of parent and child;

  • The rules to be followed in the Federal Court in revocation proceedings;

  • Defining who would be a spouse for the purpose of the Act; and

  • The powers of the Registrar of Canadian Citizenship, an official who would be appointed by the Minister (clause 44(2)).

      5. Delegation of Minister’s Powers (Clause 44)

It is interesting that the mechanism for assessing and approving citizenship applications, and governing all of the other administrative work relating to citizenship, is not readily apparent from Bill C-63. As noted above, the current administrative duties performed by citizenship judges would be taken over by public servants and, possibly to some extent, Citizenship Commissioners. (Indeed, this has already happened to the extent permitted under the current Act.) All their decisions would be taken in the name of the Minister, who, by virtue of clause 29, would have the legal duty to examine all applications under the Act and to inform rejected applicants of that fact and of the availability of judicial review in the Federal Court.(8) All of those decisions could be, and would be, delegated. Clause 30 also provides that the Minister could reverse any decision that appeared to contain a "material defect." This would permit reversal of faulty decisions without forcing an applicant to proceed to Federal Court.

Clause 44(3) specifies that only a Canadian citizen could be appointed as a Registrar of Citizenship, determine a person’s status as a citizen, or make a decision on an application to obtain, retain, renounce or resume citizenship.

      6. Disclosure (Clause 45)

Unless the person objected, a new provision would permit the name of a new citizen to be disclosed to the Speakers of both Houses, thereby allowing the Parliamentarians representing the area where the new citizen resided to offer congratulations.

   G. Status of Certain Persons in Canada (Clauses 47 – 54)

These provisions would be virtually identical in substance to those in the current law. They deal with: the status of British subjects, and citizens of the Commonwealth and Ireland; the power of a province to restrict the holding of property by non-citizens and the limitations on that power; and the equality of citizens and non-citizens in the courts.

   H. Transitional and Consequential Amendments (Clauses 55 – 68);
        Repeal and Coming into Force (Clauses 69 and 70)

Clause 55 specifies what would happen to pending applications should Bill C-63 be passed and come into force. All proceedings relating to an application would be dealt with under the new Act, with the exception of any applications that had reached a citizenship judge. However, the new provisions regarding denial of citizenship in the public interest and the national security provisions would apply. The existing powers of citizenship judges in these cases would continue as if the current Act were still in force.

Under clause 56, citizenship judges would automatically become Citizenship Commissioners, with the same term of office.

Upon the coming into force of Bill C-63, the current Citizenship Act would be repealed (clause 69).

Bill C-63 in its entirety, or any part of it, would come into force on a day (or days) chosen by the Governor in Council (clause 70).

  I. The Oath of Citizenship (Schedule)

Taking the oath of citizenship is a mandatory part of the citizenship process. The current oath is as follows:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Bill C-63 would replace that by the following:

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country’s rights and freedoms, to defend our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.

It should be noted that removing the words "Her Heirs and Successors" does not imply that pledging allegiance to the British Crown would end with the death of the present Queen. Section 35 of the Interpretation Act states that, in every enactment, the phrases "Her Majesty," "His Majesty," "the Queen," "the King," or "the Crown" mean the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth. Thus, upon her death, the reference to Queen Elizabeth would automatically be read as a reference to the succeeding monarch.

In committee, the words "to defend" were changed to "to uphold" to satisfy the concerns of conscientious objectors, who feared that the word "defend" might imply military service.

COMMENTARY

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration reviewed the bill after second reading in the House of Commons. A number of witnesses before the Committee noted that the procedure evaluating citizenship applications would be changed to an administrative system, from one where the citizenship judge enjoys a measure of independence. Some questioned that change, particularly when it was coupled with the removal of trials de novo in the Federal Court and their replacement with more limited judicial review.

Questions were raised about the proposed new power of the Minister to annul citizenship granted in cases where a false identity had been used or the person had been ineligible. Concerns centred on the sufficiency of the process governing annulments. Witnesses also questioned the vagueness of the new power of Cabinet, acting on a report of the Minister, to deny citizenship in the public interest.

Some witnesses questioned the need to have Citizenship Commissioners at all, while others felt that these were important and asked for their role to be defined more precisely.

A few groups felt that the proposed oath was inadequate, for a variety of reasons.

The changes to the derivative citizenship provisions (governing individuals born abroad to Canadian parents) were of interest to those who would be directly affected by them. They argued strongly for the retention of certain provisions at present in the Act, or for transitional provisions to soften the impact of the proposed changes on their community.

As noted earlier, Bill C-63 would not change the rule that birth on Canadian soil confers Canadian citizenship. One of the groups that addressed this issue in committee opposed maintaining the status quo, but the others supported its retention. In committee, the Minister and officials maintained that the policy would remain the same in the absence of data showing that it gave rise to a significant problem.

Finally, a number of witnesses challenged the fact that the enabling clause 43(i) would give Cabinet the power to define "spouse" for the purpose of the Act. They argued that important changes to core definitions relating to marriage and the family should be made by Parliament, not in regulations.

More extensive commentary on other contentious aspects of the bill appears below.

   A. Changes to the Residency Requirement

As noted above, the current residency rules for citizenship are fraught with difficulties. In the absence of a definition of "resident," the rules are inconsistently applied by judges; outcomes are therefore unpredictable, with citizenship having been granted in some cases to virtual strangers to the country. Bill C-63 would clarify and simplify the requirements: actual physical presence in the country would be necessary for a total of three out of the five years ? changed to six in committee ? previous to the citizenship application.

The proposed changes before amendment were strongly criticized in committee. Noting that, in a global economy, business people have to move around, immigration lawyers and representatives of ethno-cultural groups stated that the proposed rules would act as a disincentive for business people considering immigration to Canada and would be unfair to others forced to spend considerable time outside the country for other reasons. On the other hand, it may be pointed out that, even if individuals who need to travel extensively cannot qualify for citizenship at a certain point in their working lives, they can still maintain their permanent resident status.(9) They are hardly "locked in" to Canada, as one critic was reported as saying.

Another criticism was more practical. It is that the proposed system would not work because there is currently no objective or independent way of proving a person’s physical presence in Canada. Fraud in this regard is not difficult because Canada does not keep records of who enters or exits the country. Although officials can ask an applicant for citizenship for whatever documentation might assist in proving physical presence, at the end of the day the government must rely on the honesty of applicants. In committee, departmental officials acknowledged the difficulties but maintained that fraud could be minimized through the development of profiles, quality assurance, and the use of a variety of documents.

A number of witnesses also strongly opposed eliminating the current provision whereby time spent in Canada before permanent residence was achieved counts towards the residency requirement for citizenship purposes. (It will be remembered that the credit is now one-half day for every full day of residence, to a maximum of one year.) Refugee advocates argued that the impact of eliminating this provision would be particularly hard on claimants accepted as refugees in Canada, since processing times can be long, and certain refugees without adequate identity documents must wait for a further five years to be landed. As was noted previously, this provision was reintroduced in a modified form in committee. Following the amendment, the half-time provision would apply to individuals once they had achieved status in Canada; that is, refugee claimants who had been recognized by the Immigration and Refugee Board, and visitors and permit holders within the meaning of the Immigration Act.

   B. Knowledge of Canada

A number of witnesses at the committee stage also objected to the proposed requirement in Bill C-63 for the answers to the test on knowledge of Canada and the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship to be given in an official language without the assistance of an interpreter. Some argued that denying the use of an interpreter would raise the required language level to one above that of merely "adequate knowledge," while others argued the potential unfairness of the requirement for such groups as homemakers, the disabled, and those who had been tortured. Departmental officials maintained that the level of language required would be relatively basic, and that there was no intention to raise the level above "adequate" and thereby impose an unfair barrier; however, they noted the importance of basic language skills both to daily living and to participating in the democratic process. As noted previously, the provision that would have denied the assistance of an interpreter was removed in committee.

   C. Children Adopted Abroad

As noted above, children adopted abroad would become Canadian citizens upon application, without having to first become permanent residents. As noted, in Committee an amendment provided that the bill would apply to all adoptions after 14 February 1977. All witnesses who addressed this issue supported it in general, although some questioned the requirement that adoptions completed abroad would have to conform to the laws of the country of the child and the parents. Officials responded that they were responding to both the spirit and the letter of international conventions on inter-country adoptions.

Witnesses questioned what procedures would be used for assessing whether children adopted abroad met the requirements; that is, whether there was a bond of parent and child, whether all adoption laws had been complied with, and whether the adoption had been intended to circumvent Canadian immigration or citizenship law. Currently, visa officers make these kinds of decisions in assessing the application for permanent residence of an adopted child sponsored as a member of the family class. Departmental officials suggested that this practice would continue.

If a visa officer refuses an application (a common occurrence), the sponsor currently has a right to appeal to the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The Board considers all aspects of the case, including any humanitarian or compassionate factors that may exist. Witnesses pointed out that, under the proposal in Bill C-63, because there would be no application for permanent residence, that there would be no sponsor, and therefore no appeal to the Immigration and Refugee Board would be possible. Parents could apply for judicial review to the Federal Court, but the grounds would be significantly narrower and the procedures more formal than under the existing system. Thus, it would appear that parents would be worse off in cases of rejection under the proposed system than in cases of rejection under the present system. Some witnesses suggested that parents refused citizenship for their adopted children should be able to appeal to the Board; however, officials pointed out that the Immigration and Refugee Board handles only matters that arise under the Immigration Act.

It should be noted that the adoption provisions in Bill C-63 would apply only to children whose adoptions were completed abroad. They would not apply to children sponsored to Canada for the purpose of adoption in this country. These children would still have to become permanent residents before being admitted to Canada.

From 1992 to 1997 inclusive, almost 11,000 children who had been adopted abroad or were to be adopted in Canada were landed.(10) Of these, most had been adopted abroad. Still, in that period, over 900 children, representing 8.5 % of the total, came to Canada before the adoption was finalized.(11) These children would be unaffected by Bill C-63 and would continue to have to become permanent residents.


(1) There remained a question of discrimination that was recently settled by the Supreme Court of Canada. Before 1977, children born abroad of women who were Canadian citizens would not have qualified for citizenship; under the current Act, such children are required by the Act to make an application for citizenship and undergo a criminal and security check. In contrast, children born abroad before 1977 to a Canadian father need only register their births. In early 1997, the Supreme Court held this provision to be discriminatory and in violation of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. See Benner v. Canada, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358.

(2) The credit allows an applicant to accumulate one-half day for each day of residence to a maximum of a year.

(3) Re Papadogiorgakis, [1978] 2 F.C. 208.

(4) Data from Citizenship and Immigration Canada show that, in 1995 and 1996 respectively, approximately 56 and 43 children to be adopted abroad were refused visas for medical reasons. Of those, perhaps four or five per year would have received Minister’s permits to proceed. Data for 1997 are not available.

(5) It should be noted that, in principle, there is no such thing as an absolute discretion to make a decision. Even in the face of a "privative" clause stating that no review by any court would be possible, the courts could decide to intervene in the case of a serious breach of the principles of fairness during the process of denying citizenship.

(6) As noted in footnote (5), such a privative clause might not be successful in precluding judicial review by the courts in an appropriate case.

(7) Previously some offences (those contained in clause 39(2)) had been punishable only on summary conviction. The exception to the rule that all offences would be dual would be the general offence provision in clause 39(5) whereby contraventions of the Act for which no punishment is specified would be summary conviction offences only.

(8) Specifically informing rejected applicants of the availability of judicial review would be important because the current right to appeal to the Federal Court would disappear.

(9) It should be noted, however, that there are residency requirements for maintaining permanent residence.

(10) Information received from Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

(11) That figure is slightly skewed by higher percentages in 1992 and 1993; in the last four years, either 6% or 7% of the total have been children coming to Canada to be adopted.