Hubbry Logo
Canadian nationality lawCanadian nationality lawMain
Open search
Canadian nationality law
Community hub
Canadian nationality law
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Canadian nationality law
Canadian nationality law
from Wikipedia

Citizenship Act
Loi sur la citoyenneté
Parliament of Canada
  • An Act respecting citizenship
CitationRSC 1985, c. C-29
Territorial extentCanada
Enacted by30th Canadian Parliament
Commenced15 February 1977
Administered byImmigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Repeals
Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946
Status: Amended

Canadian nationality law details the conditions by which a person is a national of Canada. The primary law governing these regulations is the Citizenship Act, which came into force on 15 February 1977 and is applicable to all provinces and territories of Canada.

With few exceptions, almost all individuals born in the country are automatically citizens at birth. Foreign nationals may naturalize after living in Canada for at least three years while holding permanent residence and showing proficiency in the English or French language.

Canada is composed of several former British colonies whose residents were British subjects. After Confederation into a Dominion within the British Empire in 1867, Canada was granted more autonomy over time and gradually became independent from the United Kingdom. Although Canadian citizens have not been British subjects since 1977, they continue to hold favoured status when residing in the UK. As Commonwealth citizens, Canadians are eligible to vote in UK elections and serve in public office there.

History

[edit]

Fragmented development

[edit]

European settlement of North America began with the arrival of the first colonists from England and France in the 16th century. The rival empires competed to expand their territorial control until British victory in the Seven Years' War and annexation of French Canada in 1763.[1] Despite the loss of the Thirteen Colonies in 1783,[2] British presence on the continent continued to expand through the 19th century, often in contest with the United States as the two powers raced to settle the Pacific Northwest.[3] British nationality law applied to the North American colonies, as was the case elsewhere in the British Empire. Residents of these colonies and all other imperial citizens were British subjects; any person born in British North America, the United Kingdom, or anywhere else within Crown dominions was a natural-born British subject.[4]

British nationality law during this time was uncodified and did not have a standard set of regulations,[5] relying instead on precedent and common law.[6] Until the mid-19th century, it was unclear whether naturalization rules in the United Kingdom were applicable in other parts of the Empire. Each colony had wide discretion in developing their own procedures and requirements for admitting foreign settlers as subjects.[7]

Naturalization in Britain was achieved through private Acts of Parliament until 1844, when a more streamlined administrative process was introduced. The North American colonies emulated this system in their own naturalization legislation, which was enacted in all local legislatures by 1868.[8] In 1847, the Imperial Parliament formalised a clear distinction between subjects who naturalized in the UK and those who did so in other territories. Individuals who naturalized in the UK were deemed to have received the status by imperial naturalization, which was valid throughout the Empire. Those naturalizing in colonies were said to have gone through local naturalization and were given subject status valid only within the relevant territory;[9] a subject who locally naturalized in British Columbia was a British subject there, but not in England or New Zealand. Nevertheless, locally naturalized British subjects were still entitled to imperial protection when travelling outside of the Empire.[10]

Married women generally followed the nationality status of their husbands. Upper Canada enacted local legislation in 1849 that automatically naturalized foreign women who married British subjects, mirroring regulations enacted in the UK in 1844. After Britain established marital denaturalization for British subject women who married non-British men in 1870, Canada adapted its rules to match this in 1881.[11] The 1870 regulations provided that any British subject who acquired a foreign nationality automatically lost subject status.[12]

Post-confederation policies

[edit]

On July 1, 1867, three British North American colonies (the Province of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia) united to form the Dominion of Canada.[13] The status of Canadians as British subjects remained unchanged despite the creation of this federation.[14] Federal nationality legislation enacted in 1868 superseded laws of the new provinces; naturalization in one of the provinces became automatically valid in all of them.[15][16] Foreigners were able to naturalize as British subjects in Canada after residing in the Dominion for at least three years, fulfilling a good character requirement, and swearing an oath of allegiance.[17] By 1880, Britain had transferred all of its remaining North American territory to Canada except Newfoundland Colony,[18] which became a separate Dominion in 1907.[19]

The first law defining a "Canadian citizen" is the Immigration Act, 1910.[20] A citizen under this definition did not hold a substantive Canadian citizenship and the term was only a label for those who had the right to enter and remain in Canada; Canadians continued to be British subjects. Under the Act, a Canadian "citizen" was any person born in Canada who had not denaturalized, a British subject domiciled in Canada for at least three years, or an individual naturalized in Canada who had not since lost British subject status and remained permanently resident in the Dominion.[21]

Discriminatory policies against Asian migrants

[edit]

Chinese immigration to Canada began in the 1850s during the British Columbia gold rushes. Growing hostility and anti-Chinese sentiment led to a concerted movement within the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to restrict Chinese immigration. The provincial legislature attempted to discourage this migration with the Chinese Regulation Act of 1884, imposing an annual $10 fee on every Chinese person resident in the province and a $100 fine on recreational opium use. However, the law was struck down by the Supreme Court of British Columbia for legislating on issues beyond the scope of the provincial government. Laws directly restricting Chinese immigration were passed by the legislature in 1884 and 1885 but similarly struck down by orders in council. Fearing open violence if the situation were to continue, the federal government enacted the Chinese Immigration Act, 1885, which limited the number of Chinese migrants who could land in Canada to one per 50 tons of cargo and imposed a $50 head tax on every Chinese person who entered the Dominion. These measures also applied to British subjects of Chinese ancestry, but not those who were already resident in Canada. The entrance tax was increased to $100 in 1900 and to $500 in 1903.[22]

When Japanese migrants started entering British Columbia in large numbers beginning in 1901, the local legislature attempted to legislate restrictions on this movement, but these measures were again struck down by the federal government in 1902, 1905, and 1907. Treaty obligations stemming from the Anglo-Japanese Alliance made total restriction impossible but the Dominion was able to limit Japanese migration to Canada in most cases with agreement from the Japanese government. Only individuals with government-approved work contracts, agricultural laborers for Japanese-owned farms, returning residents, and domestic workers for Japanese residents would be allowed entry.[23]

Migration from India was also limited beginning in 1908, despite the fact that Indians were British subjects. Any person who landed in Canada from a country other than that of their birth or citizenship could be denied entry into the Dominion. Because there was no direct steamship service from India, this measure directly limited persons from India.[24] Similar measures were created targeting British subjects from Hong Kong.[25] All "Asiatic immigrants" were required beginning in 1908 to hold at least $200 of currency to enter Canada. The 1910 Immigration Act further enabled the federal government to limit the entrance of "immigrants belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada".[24]

Imperial common code

[edit]

The Imperial Parliament brought regulations for British subject status into codified statute law for the first time with passage of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. British subject status was standardised as a common nationality across the Empire. Dominions that adopted this Act as part of local legislation were authorised to grant subject status to aliens by imperial naturalization.[26][27] A Dominion could define a citizenship for its own citizens, although that status would only be effective within the local Dominion's borders.[28] Canada adopted the common code in 1914, and Newfoundland in 1916.[29]

The 1914 regulations codified the doctrine of coverture into imperial nationality law, where a woman's consent to marry a foreign national was also assumed to be intent to denaturalise; British women who married foreign men automatically lost their British nationality. There were two exceptions to this: a wife married to a husband who lost his British subject status was able to retain British nationality by declaration, and a British-born widow or divorcée who had lost her British nationality through marriage could reacquire that status without meeting residence requirements after the dissolution of her marriage.[30] Minor children whose parents voluntarily lost British subject status by renunciation or acquiring a foreign nationality were considered to have automatically British nationality as well, but could resume their status as British subjects by declaration within one year of reaching age 21.[31]

Canada became an independent member of the League of Nations and the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1920. Each country was able to nominate a candidate to be a judge on this court. It would have been possible for a successful Canadian candidate, as a British subject, to be turned down from the court if a British subject from Australia or another part of the Empire was also selected as a judge. The Canadian Nationals Act, 1921 was enacted to allow Canada to differentiate its own nationals in international bodies. Under this law, a Canadian national was any British subject who qualified as a Canadian citizen under the Immigration Act, 1910.[32]

By the end of the First World War, the Dominions had exercised increasing levels of autonomy in managing their own affairs and each by then had developed a distinct national identity. Britain formally recognised this at the 1926 Imperial Conference, jointly issuing the Balfour Declaration with all the Dominion heads of government, which stated that the United Kingdom and Dominions were autonomous and equal to each other within the British Commonwealth of Nations. Full legislative independence was granted to the Dominions with passage of the Statute of Westminster 1931.[33]

Women's rights groups throughout the Empire pressured the imperial government during this time to amend nationality regulations that tied a married woman's status to that of her husband.[34] Because the British government could no longer enforce legislative supremacy over the Dominions after 1931 and wanted to maintain a strong constitutional link to them through the common nationality code, it was unwilling to make major changes without unanimous agreement among the Dominions on this issue, which it did not have.[35] Imperial legal uniformity was nevertheless eroded during the 1930s; New Zealand and Australia amended their laws in 1935 and 1936 to allow women denaturalized by marriage to retain their rights as British subjects, and Ireland changed its regulations in 1935 to cause no change to a woman's nationality after her marriage.[36] Canada partially reformed its rules on marital denaturalization in 1932; women who had not acquired foreign nationality on marriage were permitted to retain their British nationality.[37]

Canadian citizenship created

[edit]
Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King is presented with his citizenship certificate by Chief Justice Thibaudeau Rinfret after becoming the first Canadian citizen in 1947.

Following the Second World War, growing assertions of local national identity separate from that of Britain and the Empire led the Canadian government to develop a new substantive citizenship status based on a purely Canadian idea of nationhood.[38] This was created with passage of the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946, which came into force on January 1, 1947. All British subjects who were born, naturalized, or resident for at least five years in Canada automatically acquired Canadian citizenship on that date. British subjects born to a father who himself was born or naturalized in Canada also automatically acquired citizenship on that date. Women no longer automatically took the nationality of their husbands when they married, but any British subject woman who was already married to someone qualifying as a Canadian citizen when the 1946 Act came into force automatically acquired citizenship on that date. Minor children born overseas to a Canadian father or unmarried Canadian mother who had already been admitted into Canada also automatically became Canadian citizens. All citizens of Canada and any other Commonwealth country remained defined as British subjects under this Act.[39] The Act later became applicable in Newfoundland when it joined Canada in 1949.[40]

All other noncitizens could acquire citizenship by naturalization after fulfilling a general residence requirement and demonstrating proficiency in English or French. Candidates must have continuously resided in Canada for one year immediately preceding an application. Wives of Canadian citizens had no further residence requirement, but all other applicants were additionally required to have been resident in the country for at least four of the preceding six years, for a total requisite period of five years. Applicants who had been domiciled in Canada for at least 20 years were exempted from the language requirement. Successful completion of the naturalization process was dependent on the outcome of an interview with a citizenship judge to verify an applicant's background and fulfillment of the citizenship requirements. Non-local British subjects applying for naturalization were not subject to this judicial requirement.[41]

Provisions for automatic loss of citizenship

[edit]

Children born abroad to a Canadian father or unmarried Canadian mother after the 1946 Act came into force were eligible to became Canadian citizens, provided that their births were registered at a Canadian diplomatic mission within two years. On reaching age 21, these individuals were required to make a formal declaration of their intention to retain Canadian citizenship within one year. If they had acquired nationality of another country by birth or at any point as a minor, they were also required to renounce their other nationalities. Eligible minor children who had not already lawfully entered Canada when the Act became effective were subject to the same conditions for retaining Canadian citizenship on reaching age 21.[42] The time limit to make a declaration of citizenship retention was later extended from one year to three years, before an applicable person's 24th birthday. Alternatively, they would also remain citizens if they were domiciled in Canada on reaching age 24.[43]

Canadian citizens residing overseas who voluntarily acquired a foreign nationality other than through marriage automatically lost their Canadian citizenship. Canadians who became foreign nationals by marriage, who held another nationality by birth, or had otherwise become foreign nationals as minors could retain Canadian citizenship unless they made a formal declaration of renunciation. The 1946 Act further contained extensive measures for revoking citizenship from Canadians who were not natural-born. Individuals who became domiciled outside of Canada for six years, showed disloyalty to the monarch, obtained naturalization through fraudulent means, or traded with an enemy nation during a time of war were liable to have their citizenship revoked. Honorably discharged former service members of the Canadian Armed Forces were exempt from the six-year overseas residence limit.[44] The maximum period of absence from Canada was extended to 10 years in the 1950s and later repealed in 1967.[45]

Reform and abolition of British subject status

[edit]

The creation of Canadian citizenship unilaterally broke the system of a common imperial nationality. Combined with the approaching independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, comprehensive reform to imperial nationality law was necessary at this point to address ideas that were incompatible with the previous system.[46] The British Nationality Act 1948 abolished the common code and each Commonwealth country would enact legislation to create its own nationality. British subject was redefined to mean any citizen of a Commonwealth country. Commonwealth citizen is defined in this Act to have the same meaning. British subject/Commonwealth citizen status co-existed with the citizenships of each Commonwealth country.[47] The change in naming indicated a shift in the base idea of British subject status; allegiance to the Crown was no longer a requirement to possess the common status, which would be maintained by voluntary agreement among the various members of the Commonwealth.[48] Irish citizens were treated as if they were British subjects, despite Ireland's exit from the Commonwealth in 1949.[49]

All British subjects under the reformed system initially held an automatic right to settle in the United Kingdom and Ireland.[50][51] Non-white immigration into the UK was systemically discouraged, but strong economic conditions in Britain following the Second World War attracted an unprecedented wave of colonial migration.[52] In response, the British Parliament imposed immigration controls on any subjects originating from outside the British Islands with the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962.[53] Ireland had continued to allow all British subjects free movement despite independence in 1922 as part of the Common Travel Area arrangement, but moved to mirror Britain's restriction in 1962 by limiting this ability only to people born on the islands of Great Britain or Ireland.[54][51] Britain somewhat relaxed these measures in 1971 for patrials, subjects whose parents or grandparents were born in the United Kingdom,[53] which gave effective preferential treatment to white Commonwealth citizens.[55]

As a sign of Canada's changing relationship with Britain, British subjects lost voting eligibility for federal elections in 1975. Provincial governments progressively phased out this entitlement until it was fully abolished in 2006.[56] Preferences that were afforded to non-local British subjects in the naturalization process were abolished in 1977. British subject status itself was removed from Canadian law in that year as well, although Canadians and citizens from other Commonwealth countries remain defined as Commonwealth citizens.[57]

By the 1970s and 1980s, most colonies of the British Empire had become independent and remaining ties to the United Kingdom had been significantly weakened. The UK itself updated its nationality law to reflect the more modest boundaries of its remaining territory and possessions with the British Nationality Act 1981,[58] which redefined British subject to no longer also mean Commonwealth citizen. Canadian citizens remain Commonwealth citizens in British law and are still eligible to vote and stand for public office in the UK.[59]

Expanding access to citizenship

[edit]

The Citizenship Act 1977 expanded the available pathways to citizenship and allowed more situations to retain it. The retention requirement was abolished for individuals born overseas to natural-born or naturalized Canadians, and any applicable person who had not yet reached age 24 at that point was no longer required to make a declaration of retention;[60] individuals born after February 1953 have not been subject to this requirement. Births overseas also no longer needed to be registered within two years to maintain eligibility for Canadian citizenship.[61] However, persons born abroad to Canadian parents who themselves were born abroad became subject to a retention requirement before age 28. The general residence requirement for acquiring citizenship was reduced to three years and remaining gender imbalances were removed from nationality regulations; citizenship has been transferrable by descent to children through mothers as well as fathers regardless of marital status since 1977. Additionally, automatic denaturalisation of Canadians acquiring foreign nationalities was repealed.[60]

As part of a 1988 agreement with the Japanese Canadian community in compensation for their internment during the Second World War, any individual of Japanese ancestry who was expelled from Canada or had their citizenship revoked between 1941 and 1949 was eligible for a special restoration of citizenship. This right to citizenship also extended to the descendants of applicable persons.[62] The requirement for an interview with a citizenship judge in the naturalization process was largely replaced by the Canadian Citizenship Test in 1995. Applicants who failed this test are still required to be interviewed by a judge, although the rate of successfully passing the test is over 90 percent.[63]

Naturalization requirements became more stringent in 2014, after passage of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. The general residence requirement was increased to a minimum of four of the preceding six years and applicants became required to be physically present in Canada for at least 183 days per year. The age range for candidates mandated to take citizenship and language tests was broadened to include all individuals aged 14 to 64 (previously 18 to 54) and the language requirement itself became stricter. While candidates were previously screened for language knowledge through their ability to pass the citizenship test, naturalization candidates became required to attain a level 4 rating in a Canadian Language Benchmark evaluation.[64]

Restoration of involuntarily lost citizenship

[edit]

When the 1977 Act was enacted, a provision was included that allowed children born abroad to unmarried Canadian mothers (but not fathers) who had not had their births registered within two years an extension to that deadline to register as Canadian citizens. In the 2004 Federal Court case Augier v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), it was ruled that the exclusion of children born to unmarried Canadian fathers infringed upon rights of equality granted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Individuals born abroad to unmarried Canadian fathers before 1977 could apply for citizenship during a limited application period that ended on August 14, 2004. Citizenship granted through this process was not retroactive from birth and was only applicable from the date it was granted.[65]

Following the 2007 implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, Canadian citizens became required to hold Canadian passports when crossing the Canada–United States border. When applying for passports, a large number of individuals who believed themselves to be citizens discovered that they did not actually hold Canadian citizenship due to previous provisions concerning automatic loss under the 1946 Act. Legislation enacted in 2009 addressed this issue by restoring citizenship to specific categories of individuals who had involuntarily lost that status. This group of affected people became known as the Lost Canadians. Citizenship was restored to any person who: had naturalized as a Canadian citizen but resided overseas for more than 10 years before 1967, had acquired foreign nationality through their own or a parent's naturalization, had been born abroad to an applicable parent (married Canadian father or unmarried Canadian mother) before 1977 and did not have their birth registered with Canadian authorities or failed to apply for citizenship retention before age 24, or had been born abroad to a Canadian parent who themself was born abroad after 1977 but failed to apply for retention before age 28. Any person born abroad to a Canadian parent in the second or subsequent generations after the 1977 Act came into force but had not yet reached age 28 on 17 April 2009 was able to retain Canadian citizenship without application. However, citizenship has not been transferrable by descent past the first generation born abroad since that date.[66]

Further changes became effective in 2015 that granted Canadian citizenship to certain groups of individuals who had never become citizens and their descendants. Canadian citizenship was granted to individuals who: were born or naturalized in Canada but lost British subject status before the 1946 Act came into force, were non-local British subjects ordinarily resident in Canada but did not qualify as Canadian citizens when that status was created, were born outside Canada in the first generation to a parent in either of the preceding categories, were born outside Canada in the first generation to a parent who did become a Canadian citizen when the 1946 Act became effective but who themself did not acquire citizenship, or were a foreign-born adoptee who was adopted before 1947 by a parent who became a Canadian citizen and who qualified to pass citizenship by descent. Any person who voluntarily renounced British subject status or had it revoked did not qualify to receive citizenship by this special grant.[67]

In 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found the first-generation limit to citizenship by descent unconstitutional. The rule was deemed to have violated the charter rights of citizens born abroad, as it did not grant the same rights to citizens based on where they had been born.[68] The Liberal government decided to not challenge the ruling, and is required by the court to grant citizenship to those impacted by the first-generation limit. The court required the government to pass a law doing so by June 20, 2024, but multiple extensions have been granted, and the current deadline is November 20, 2025.[69][70]

Acquisition and loss of citizenship

[edit]

Entitlement by birth, descent, or adoption

[edit]

Nearly all individuals born in Canada receive Canadian citizenship by birth,[71] including those who were born in Canadian airspace, internal and territorial waters,[72] and Canadian-registered ships and aircraft.[73] The only exceptions are children born to two foreign parents with at least one who is employed by a foreign government, an employee of a foreign government, or an organization with diplomatic immunity.[74] Abandoned children found before the age of seven are assumed to have been born in Canada, unless contrary evidence is found within seven years of discovery.[75]

Children born overseas are Canadian citizens by descent if either parent is a citizen otherwise than by descent (meaning by birth in Canada or naturalization). Citizenship by descent was limited to only one generation born outside of the country,[76] other than children or grandchildren of members of the Canadian Armed Forces.[77] However, this limit was found unconstitutional in 2023, with legislation to remove the limit pending.[70] Adopted children are treated as if they were naturally born to the adopting parents and are subject to the same regulations regarding birthplace and descent.[78][79]

Naturalization

[edit]
New citizens taking the oath of citizenship at a 2019 citizenship ceremony

Foreign permanent residents or status Indians over the age of 18 may become Canadian citizens by grant after residing in Canada for more than three years.[80][81] Candidates must be physically present in the country for at least 1,095 days during the five-year period immediately preceding their applications.[80] This requirement may be partially met by time spent within the country before acquiring permanent residency; applicants may count each day within the preceding five-year period that they were present in Canada as a temporary resident or protected person as half a day of physical presence for this condition, up to a maximum of 365 days.[82]

Applicants must have filed income taxes for three of the preceding five years,[83] and those between the ages of 18 and 54 must additionally demonstrate proficiency in either the English or French language and pass the Canadian Citizenship Test.[84] Minor children under the age of 18 who have a Canadian parent or are naturalizing at the same time as a parent are not required to fulfill the physical presence or tax filing requirements, but those applying separately are subject to those conditions.[85] Successful applicants over the age of 14 are required to take an oath of citizenship.[86]

Permanent residents in the Canadian Armed Forces may alternatively fulfill the physical presence requirement with 1,095 days of completed military service during the preceding six-year period.[87] Foreign military servicemembers attached to the CAF with an equivalent amount of completed service time are exempt from holding permanent residence or filing income taxes.[88] Stateless individuals under the age of 23 who were born overseas to at least one parent with Canadian citizenship after 17 April 2009 and meet the 1,095-day physical presence requirement for a four-year period may also be granted citizenship.[89]

The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has discretionary power to waive language and citizenship test requirements for any candidates in compassionate circumstances, and the citizenship oath requirement for applicants with mental disabilities. The Minister also may grant citizenship extraordinarily without any requirements to persons who are stateless, subject to "special and unusual hardship", or have made exceptional contributions to the country.[90] These atypical grants have been conferred more than 500 times since 1977, often on athletes competing for Canada internationally.[91] The Parliament of Canada occasionally bestows honorary Canadian citizenship on exceptional foreigners, but this distinction is symbolic and does not grant awarded individuals substantive rights in Canada.[92]

Before 2015, the physical presence requirement was 1,095 days within a four-year period. Between 17 June 2015 and 11 October 2017, this was extended to 1,460 days within a six-year period, with an additional presence requirement of 183 days per year in four of those six years. Time spent within the country as a non-permanent resident was not counted toward the stricter presence requirements. The age range of applicants subject to language and citizenship tests during this regulatory period was between the ages of 14 and 65.[93]

Renunciation and revocation

[edit]

Canadian citizenship can be relinquished by applying for renunciation, provided that the applicant already possesses or will possess another nationality.[94] Individuals who automatically acquired citizenship in 2009 or 2015 because of amendments to nationality law in those years have a special route for renunciation that only requires that they are citizens of another country and costs no fees.[95]

Former citizens who renounced their nationality may subsequently apply for nationality restoration, after reacquiring permanent residency and being physically present in Canada for at least 365 days during the two-year period preceding their applications. They must also have filed income taxes for the prior year.[96] Individuals who had their citizenships revoked are ineligible for nationality resumption and must follow the naturalization process instead.[97]

Citizenship may be revoked from individuals who fraudulently acquired it,[98] and renunciations may be similarly rescinded from persons who provided false information during that process.[99][100] The Federal Court holds decision-making power for all revocation cases, except where the individual in question specifically requests the IRCC Minister to make that decision.[100] Additionally, between 28 May 2015 and 19 June 2017, Canadians holding another citizenship who were convicted of treason or terrorism were liable for potential citizenship revocation.[100][101]

Canadian royal family

[edit]

Although the King of Canada primarily resides in the United Kingdom, the sovereign is the physical embodiment of the Canadian state,[102][103] and is therefore considered Canadian.[104] Members of the royal family are personal subjects of the Canadian monarch and not foreigners for the purpose of diplomatic or military protocol,[105] but they fall within the definition of a foreign national unless they acquired Canadian citizenship or permanent residence[106] and there is no legal provision that grants them automatic citizenship or permanent residence.[107] The King and other royal family members have occasionally described Canada as "home" and themselves as Canadian.[108][109][110][111]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Canadian nationality law governs the acquisition, transmission, and termination of Canadian citizenship, establishing a distinct separate from status. The foundational Canadian Citizenship Act took effect on January 1, 1947, marking the first legal recognition of Canadian citizenship as an independent status. The current regime is codified in the Citizenship Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29), which entered into force on February 15, 1977, and outlines that citizens, regardless of birth origin, possess identical rights, privileges, and obligations. Citizenship is principally obtained via —birth on Canadian soil, excluding children of foreign diplomats or representatives—with limited exceptions; by descent from a Canadian citizen parent, historically restricted to the first generation born abroad but subject to recent expansions; or through , requiring at least 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada as a permanent resident over five years, demonstrated language proficiency in English or French, successful completion of a citizenship test on rights, responsibilities, and history, and an oath of . Canada permits multiple without mandatory renunciation and has implemented provisions for revoking citizenship in cases of , terrorism-related convictions, or , though judicial rulings have constrained broader applications. Notable developments include 2015 amendments addressing "lost Canadians" born before 1947 or affected by descent limits, and 2025 legislation broadening citizenship by descent to mitigate generational cutoffs that previously excluded descendants abroad. These features reflect Canada's emphasis on integrating while preserving territorial birthright principles, contributing to one of the world's highest per capita rates amid substantial annual .

Historical Development

Pre-Confederation Origins and British Subject Status

The origins of nationality law in the territories that became predate British rule, with inhabitants of holding the status of French subjects under ordinances of the French Crown, where for aliens was exceptionally rare before due to the monarchy's restrictive privileges. The Treaty of Paris, signed on February 10, , transferred sovereignty of from to , rendering former French subjects in the Province of by operation of conquest under , though practical enjoyment of rights hinged on swearing oaths of allegiance to the British Crown. The accompanying Royal Proclamation of October 7, , established as a British province, outlined territorial governance, and affirmed the extension of British protections to inhabitants while prohibiting unauthorized settlement beyond certain boundaries. The , enacted by the British Parliament on June 22, 1774, reinforced allegiance by permitting Canadiens to pledge fidelity to without explicit renunciation of papal authority, thereby accommodating Catholic practices while confirming their status as and retaining French civil law for property, inheritance, and tenure. British subject status derived fundamentally from principles of , whereby birth within the sovereign's dominions—absent exceptions like —automatically conferred natural-born subjecthood, a rule applicable across British North American colonies without local variation. For non-British aliens, naturalization followed imperial frameworks, including the Plantation Act of 1740 (13 Geo. 2. c. 7), which empowered colonial assemblies to grant subject status after seven years' continuous residence, good character certification, and oaths of allegiance and abjuration. In , the Act of 1828 (8 Geo. IV, c. 21) specifically extended full equivalent to natural-born subjects to qualifying pre-1792 residents and their descendants, aligning with the British Act of 1825. Colonial legislatures, such as those in Upper and Lower Canada, administered these processes locally but subordinate to imperial oversight, with surviving records documenting 2,967 naturalizations in Upper Canada from 1828 to 1850 alone, typically requiring residency proofs, oaths, and fees. Throughout pre-Confederation British North America, no independent nationality framework emerged; residents uniformly possessed British subject status, undifferentiated by provincial boundaries and entitling them to imperial protections, mobility within the Empire, and allegiance obligations without a distinct colonial citizenship.

Post-Confederation Policies and Discriminatory Restrictions

Following in 1867, in initially remained under , allowing aliens to acquire status through oaths of and residence requirements varying by , typically three to five years. The federal Act of 1881 centralized the process, standardizing criteria including five years' residence, good character, and knowledge of English or French, while granting certificates that conferred imperial status exercisable throughout the . The 1914 Act further harmonized rules with imperial law, raising residence to five years and requiring judicial approval, but maintained discretionary cabinet oversight that enabled de facto exclusions. These policies intersected with immigration restrictions that disproportionately barred non-European groups from long-term residence prerequisite to naturalization, reflecting preferences for British, American, and select European settlers to populate the Dominion. The Immigration Act of 1869 empowered exclusion of Chinese and Black immigrants belonging to "any race deemed unsuited to the climate or conditions of the country," though enforcement was inconsistent until later measures. In 1885, the federal government imposed a $50 head tax on Chinese laborers to curtail their entry, escalating it to $100 in 1900 and $500 in 1903, generating revenue while reducing Chinese arrivals from over 17,000 in the 1880s to fewer than 100 annually by 1923. South Asian immigration faced the 1908 Continuous Journey Regulation, mandating unbroken sea travel from the migrant's home country, which no Indian steamship lines provided, effectively halting Sikh, Muslim, and Hindu entry after the 1914 deported 376 passengers. Japanese inflows were capped by a 1908 limiting annual entries to 400 mostly male laborers, following earlier provincial restrictions in . The Immigration Act of 1910 codified authority to prohibit "immigrants of any race deemed unsuited," applied against Indians and others perceived as unassimilable. The Chinese Immigration Act, effective July 1, 1923, banned nearly all Chinese entry—except diplomats, merchants, students, and Canadian-born children—requiring certificates of leave for re-entry and imposing penalties for evasion, resulting in only 15 Chinese immigrants admitted in 1923 and under 50 total during its 24-year duration. While statutory law lacked explicit racial bars, administrative discretion under the 1914 Act denied certificates to most Asian-origin applicants until post-World War II, when wartime service by Chinese and prompted policy shifts allowing for some. Gender-based restrictions persisted via imperial doctrine, codified in the 1914 Act, whereby women automatically lost status upon marrying an alien, acquiring his instead, without reciprocal rights for men; this affected thousands until the 1947 Canadian Citizenship Act decoupled marital status from . Such measures prioritized demographic homogeneity, favoring "white" British subjects while marginalizing non-Europeans, with immigration policy serving as the primary vector for exclusion despite formal jus soli granting birthright British subject status to children of restricted groups born in Canada.

Establishment of Canadian Citizenship in 1947

Prior to 1947, residents of Canada possessed the status of British subjects under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, lacking a separate national citizenship tied exclusively to Canada. The Canadian Citizenship Act, enacted as S.C. 1946, c. 15 and proclaimed in force on 1 January 1947, introduced Canadian citizenship as a distinct legal category for the first time. This legislation positioned Canada as the initial Commonwealth realm to codify its own citizenship framework, independent of uniform British subject status, amid post-World War II efforts to solidify national sovereignty and identity. The Act specified criteria for citizenship acquisition, granting it automatically to individuals born in on or after the effective date and to British subjects domiciled in for a minimum of five years immediately preceding 1947. provisions required applicants to demonstrate five years of continuous residence, good character, and sufficient knowledge of English or French; war veterans qualified after one year of residence, while long-term residents (20 years) were exempt from language tests. transmission by descent applied through paternal lineage, with maternal descent recognized only for children born out of wedlock. Married women preserved their status regardless of their spouse's nationality, diverging from prior dependencies. Introduced under Prime Minister King's administration by Secretary of State , the Act's implementation included the inaugural citizenship ceremony on 3 January 1947, where King received certificate number 0001 from Thibaudeau Rinfret. Provisions for loss included revocation for fraud in acquisition, disloyalty such as serving in enemy forces, or in a foreign state without permission. Overall, the measure aimed to unify diverse populations under a Canadian-specific while retaining bonds, though it perpetuated certain exclusions reflective of era-specific policies on loyalty and descent.

Reforms from 1977 to 2000s: Dual Citizenship and Expansion

The Citizenship Act of 1976, which came into force on February 15, 1977, marked a significant overhaul of Canadian nationality law, replacing the framework and introducing provisions that permitted dual and for the first time. Under the prior regime, Canadians by birth who voluntarily acquired another nationality generally lost their Canadian citizenship, while naturalized citizens faced revocation for similar actions; the 1977 Act eliminated these automatic losses, allowing individuals to retain Canadian citizenship alongside foreign nationalities without penalty. This shift reversed decades of policy that had compelled choices between nationalities, particularly affecting emigrants and their descendants who had been deemed "lost Canadians" due to inadvertent renunciations between 1947 and 1977. The reforms expanded access to citizenship by broadening acquisition pathways and removing prior restrictions. Citizenship by descent (jus sanguinis) was clarified to extend indefinitely across generations born abroad, provided the parent was a Canadian citizen at the child's birth, without the registration requirements or time limits that had constrained transmission under the 1947 Act. Jus soli remained unrestricted for births in Canada, subject only to exceptions for children of foreign diplomats. Naturalization criteria were streamlined, requiring three years of physical presence in Canada out of the preceding five years, language proficiency, and knowledge of Canada, while eliminating the pre-admission declaration of intent to naturalize that had previously applied to immigrants. These changes separated citizenship more distinctly from immigration status, facilitating retention and acquisition for diverse groups, including those with ties to Canada through extended family abroad. Further expansions occurred in the , notably through the 2009 amendments via Bill C-37, which addressed gaps for "lost Canadians" affected by pre-1977 rules while codifying a first-generation limit for future descent cases. The amendments granted retroactive citizenship to individuals born outside to Canadian parents who would have qualified under updated descent rules, effectively restoring status to thousands impacted by historical dual-citizenship prohibitions and wartime-era policies. However, the new limit restricted automatic transmission beyond the first generation born abroad, balancing expansion with measures to prioritize direct ties to . Loss of citizenship was further narrowed, retaining revocation only for fraud in or, in limited cases, security-related renunciations, while prohibiting . These adjustments reflected ongoing efforts to rectify exclusions from earlier eras without unduly broadening indefinite generational claims.

2010s Reforms: Revocation, Conditions, and Reversals

In 2014, the Conservative government under Prime Minister introduced Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received on June 19, 2014, with most provisions taking effect on June 11, 2015. This legislation expanded the grounds for revoking from dual nationals convicted of serious offenses, including , , , or taking up arms against , allowing the Minister of Immigration to strip citizenship and facilitate . The measure applied only to those holding dual citizenship, creating a distinction from single Canadian nationals who could not be denaturalized in the same manner, a policy justified by the government as targeting threats who retained alternative nationalities but criticized by opponents for establishing unequal tiers. Bill C-24 also imposed stricter conditions for , increasing the required physical presence in from three years out of the previous five to four years (1,460 days) out of the previous six immediately before applying. Applicants were further required to demonstrate an intent to reside in after granting, file taxes for at least three years if applicable, and pass enhanced language and knowledge tests, with the aim of ensuring stronger ties to among new . These changes affected thousands of permanent residents, delaying for many and prompting a surge in applications before implementation. The revocation provisions saw limited application, with only a handful of cases initiated, such as against individuals linked to terrorist activities abroad, before facing legal challenges on constitutional grounds. In 2017, the Liberal government under Prime Minister introduced Bill C-6, An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act, which received on June 19, 2017, repealing the conditional revocation framework for dual nationals and restoring uniform treatment across all citizens for such offenses. This reversal eliminated the two-tier system, arguing it violated equality principles under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while retaining revocation powers for fraud in citizenship acquisition. Bill C-6 further eased naturalization conditions by reverting residency requirements to three years out of five, allowing up to one year of prior time as a temporary resident or protected person to count at half value toward the total, and removing the post-granting intent-to-reside obligation. These amendments, effective immediately upon for most parts, led to a significant increase in citizenship applications, reflecting a policy shift toward broader accessibility despite concerns from some quarters about potentially weakening integration standards. The reforms underscored ongoing debates over balancing with equal rights, with the revocation reversal prioritizing uniformity over differentiated penalties for dual nationals.

Acquisition of Citizenship

Birth in Canada (Unrestricted Jus Soli)

Under section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, a person born in Canada after February 14, 1977, acquires Canadian citizenship automatically at birth, irrespective of the nationality, citizenship, or immigration status of their parents. This embodies the principle of jus soli, granting citizenship based solely on the place of birth within Canadian territory, without conditions tied to parental residency duration or citizenship—distinguishing Canada from nations that have restricted birthright citizenship to require at least one parent's legal status. The rule applies uniformly to births on land, in internal waters, or under circumstances deeming the birth as occurring in Canada, such as on a Canadian-registered vessel in territorial waters or an aircraft in Canadian airspace at the time of birth. The unrestricted nature of this jus soli provision stems from common law traditions inherited from British practice and was affirmed in the 1977 Citizenship Act, which replaced earlier status as British subjects with explicit Canadian citizenship for those born in the country. Prior to 1977, individuals born in Canada were British subjects by birth under imperial law, with Canadian citizenship retroactively recognized upon the 1947 Act's creation of the category, ensuring continuity for birthright claims. No amendments as of 2025 have imposed parental citizenship requirements or residency thresholds, maintaining broad access despite periodic debates over "birth tourism," where non-resident parents travel to Canada for childbirth to secure citizenship for the child. A narrow exception under section 3(2) excludes citizenship by birth for children where, at the time of birth, neither parent was a or permanent resident, and one parent was employed as a , consular officer, or similar official enjoying diplomatic privileges and immunities under or international conventions. This applies to representatives of foreign governments or international organizations, such as UN personnel, but not to other temporary visitors, refugees, or undocumented individuals. Children of such diplomats may later naturalize but do not receive automatic entitlement.

Descent from Canadian Parents (Jus Sanguinis Limits)

Canadian citizenship by descent permits a child born outside Canada to acquire citizenship at birth if, at the time of birth, at least one parent (biological or adoptive, under certain conditions) was a Canadian citizen. This principle, known as jus sanguinis, applies to births on or after February 15, 1947, the date the first Citizenship Act entered into force, but is strictly circumscribed by statutory limits to prevent indefinite generational transmission without ties to Canada. The core restriction, enacted through 2009 amendments to the Citizenship Act via Bill C-37 and effective for births on or after April 17, 2009, imposes a first-generation limit. Under section 3(3), a person born outside Canada does not acquire citizenship by descent if neither parent was a citizen by birth in Canada, by naturalization in Canada, or by specific grants outside Canada (such as to lost Canadians under prior reforms); instead, transmission is confined to children of citizens whose own citizenship originated domestically or through non-descent means. Thus, a first-generation child born abroad to a Canadian parent born or naturalized in Canada receives citizenship automatically, but a second-generation child born abroad to that first-generation citizen-parent generally does not, absent exceptions. This limit addresses policy concerns over tenuous connections to Canada, as unlimited descent could extend citizenship to individuals with minimal or no residency, employment, or other links to the country. Exceptions to the limit are narrow and tied to abroad. Citizenship by descent extends beyond the first generation if the transmitting parent was, at the time of the child's birth, employed outside Canada as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, a federal , or an employee of a provincial or territorial government posted abroad, provided the employment occurred before the child's birth. Additionally, for children born before April 17, 2009, transitional provisions under section 3(4) allow descent if the parent resided in Canada for at least one year prior to the parent's own birth or met analogous criteria, mitigating retroactive effects on pre-limit families. These carve-outs reflect a balance favoring state interests in security and administration over pure bloodline inheritance. The first-generation limit has generated litigation and advocacy, notably creating "Lost Canadians"—individuals with Canadian parentage but ineligible for due to abroad births—prompting 2005-2009 reforms that granted status to thousands affected by pre-2009 gaps, such as deportations of citizens-turned-stateless. Courts have scrutinized the policy for potential violations, including discrimination under section 15, though upheld on grounds of reasonable limits. As of October 2025, the limit persists, but Bill C-3 (introduced June 5, 2025) proposes expansions, including automatic for certain pre-enactment second-generation descendants and a "substantial connection" test (e.g., 1,095 days of parental residency in ) for future cases, though the bill remains at report stage in and is not yet law. Critics argue such changes risk diluting 's value by prioritizing ancestry over direct ties, while proponents cite equity for families with intermittent Canadian residency.

Naturalization Requirements and Process

Naturalization in Canada, formally known as a grant of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, requires applicants to meet specific eligibility criteria administered by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Applicants must hold permanent resident status and intend to reside in Canada upon citizenship approval, unless exempted. They are ineligible if subject to a removal order, under immigration review, or appealing a decision that could lead to permanent resident status revocation. A core requirement is physical presence in for at least 1,095 days (equivalent to three years) within the five-year period immediately preceding the application date. Each day as a temporary resident or protected person counts as half a day, up to a maximum credit of 365 days. Applicants must also demonstrate adequate knowledge of by passing a citizenship test covering , laws, and values, applicable to those aged 18 to 54. Proficiency in English or French at Canadian Language Benchmark level 4 or higher must be proven for the same age group through approved tests, educational credentials, or government-funded language training. Additionally, applicants required to file income taxes must have done so for at least three years within the five-year eligibility period; IRCC lacks direct access to CRA tax files or T4 slips, with applicants submitting relevant documents for immigration and permanent residence processes such as Express Entry, though limited information sharing with the Canada Revenue Agency verifies tax filing compliance for citizenship grants under the Citizenship Act. Minors under 18 applying with a parent or guardian are exempt from the test and language requirements but must meet residency criteria based on the parent's status. Those aged 14 to 17 may request a for the , while children under 14 are automatically exempt. Prohibitions apply to individuals convicted of serious crimes, including indictable offenses under Canadian or foreign equivalent to a maximum five-year sentence, or those failing to file taxes during the eligibility period. The application process begins by calculating physical presence days using the official IRCC tool, followed by gathering required documents such as a copy of the permanent resident card, proof of language proficiency, photographs, tax filing records, and identity documents. Applicants then submit form CIT 0002 online or by paper, accompanied by fees of $649.75 for adults (including $530 processing and $119.75 right of fees) and $100 for minors under 18. IRCC assesses eligibility, a process that as of February 2026 takes approximately 14 months for citizenship grant applications for adults and minor children. This is an estimate and may vary based on application complexity, completeness, and IRCC workload. Processing times are updated monthly on the official IRCC website. Approved applicants aged 18 to 54 attend a virtual or in-person interview for the citizenship test (75 minutes, multiple-choice on 20 questions) and language evaluation. Successful candidates receive an invitation to a citizenship ceremony, where they recite the affirming allegiance to the sovereign, obedience to laws, and fulfillment of duties as a citizen. Upon oath recitation, citizenship is granted, and a certificate is issued; dual citizenship is permitted without renunciation of prior nationalities.

Adoption and Other Granting Mechanisms

Canadian citizenship may be granted to foreign-born individuals adopted by a Canadian citizen through a direct application process under section 5.1 of the Citizenship Act, bypassing the need for prior . This provision applies to minors under 18 years of age at the time of application, requiring the adoption to establish a genuine parent-child relationship, conform to the laws of the adoption jurisdiction, and comply with Canadian legal standards, including prohibitions under against purchasing or trafficking in children. The adoptive must be a Canadian citizen at the time of adoption, and the child must not already hold Canadian ; applications involve submitting proof of , parental citizenship confirmation, and fees of $100 for children under 18 or $649.75 for those 18 and older as of March 31, 2025. The first-generation limit on citizenship by descent extends to adoptions, meaning a child adopted abroad by a Canadian citizen who themselves acquired citizenship by descent (born outside Canada to a Canadian parent) does not automatically receive full transmission rights beyond that generation, though the direct grant still confers citizenship to the adoptee. Adoptions must be recognized as full and final under Canadian provincial or territorial laws, with Quebec-specific provisions allowing grants prior to arrival if a complete adoption order exists. For adoptions not qualifying for the direct route—such as those involving adults or non-compliant foreign adoptions—applicants may pursue via sponsorship followed by , though this imposes residency and language requirements absent in the adoption grant. Beyond adoption, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship holds discretionary authority under subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act to grant citizenship to any person, irrespective of standard eligibility, to address , special or unusual hardship, or to recognize exceptional services rendered to . Such grants are rare and assessed case-by-case, with approvals limited annually; for instance, they have been extended to individuals affected by the first-generation limit's "Lost Canadian" cases, where legislative gaps create undue hardship, but require compelling evidence of merit without guaranteed outcomes. No residency, , or requirements apply to these ministerial decisions, distinguishing them from , though applicants must demonstrate alignment with the provision's intent, such as resolving indefinite without alternative nationality options.

Loss of Citizenship

Renunciation by Choice

Canadian citizens may voluntarily renounce their citizenship under subsection 9(1) of the Citizenship Act, which permits an application to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship for approval. Upon ministerial approval, a certificate of renunciation is issued, and citizenship ceases on the date specified therein, rendering the individual a with no automatic right to enter or reside in . This process is irrevocable, though former citizens may later apply for if they meet standard residency and other eligibility criteria. Eligibility requires proof of current Canadian , such as a citizenship certificate or certificate of retention, and evidence that will not result in ; applicants must already hold or intend to acquire of another country, demonstrated by foreign passports, proofs, or official intent declarations. Minors under 18 cannot renounce independently but may be included in a parent's application if it aligns with their best interests, subject to additional scrutiny. Those who acquired solely due to amendments in the Citizenship Act (e.g., certain lost-generation cases) are exempt from the $100 processing fee, but all others must pay it in Canadian funds. The application, form CIT 0302, must be completed in full, including a of intent, and submitted with supporting documents like two pieces of identification and photos meeting IRCC specifications; processing typically takes 10 to 15 months, during which applicants retain status. Urgent processing is unavailable, though expedited review may occur for compelling reasons if requested in writing. Consequences include permanent loss of rights such as voting in federal elections, holding a , accessing consular services abroad, and sponsoring family members for ; return to requires a visitor visa or other entry authorization, and any prior permanent resident obligations (e.g., residency requirements) end. does not affect obligations like or tax liabilities accrued prior to the effective date, nor does it automatically alter provincial or territorial rights tied to residency rather than citizenship. Dual citizens renouncing Canadian nationality retain their other citizenships unaffected, as recognizes multiple nationalities since 1977 amendments.

Revocation for Fraud, Security Threats, or Crimes

Canadian citizenship obtained by grant may be revoked by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship if the person became a citizen through false representation, , or by knowingly concealing material circumstances relating to relevant facts that, if known at the time, might have precluded the granting of citizenship. This provision, outlined in section 10 of the Citizenship Act, targets naturalized citizens whose applications involved deception, such as fabricating identity, employment history, or concealing criminal inadmissibility, including prior involvement in , crimes, or that would have rendered them ineligible under laws. Revocation does not apply to citizens by birth in or by descent, nor to post-grant conduct unless it reveals pre-existing in the acquisition process. The revocation process commences with the Minister issuing a Notice of Intent to Revoke Canadian Citizenship, detailing the grounds and evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. The affected individual has 30 days to submit written representations contesting the allegations, after which the Minister may refer the case to the Federal Court for a declaration under subsection 10.1(1) of the Citizenship Act. The Court examines whether the evidence supports revocation on a balance of probabilities, with the person retaining procedural rights including access to counsel and disclosure of case materials, though national security exceptions may limit some evidence. If the Court issues a declaration, citizenship is terminated, rendering the individual a foreign national subject to removal proceedings if inadmissible; revoked persons face a permanent bar from reapplying for citizenship. Direct revocation for security threats or post-citizenship crimes, such as convictions, was briefly enabled by the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (Bill C-24, enacted June 2014), which permitted stripping citizenship from dual nationals convicted of , high , , or spying offences carrying a maximum sentence of five years or more, or for serving as a member of an armed force engaged in armed conflict against . This measure aimed to deter and ensure citizenship reflected allegiance, but it applied only to dual citizens, prompting legal challenges over equality rights under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provision was repealed by Bill C-6, receiving on June 19, 2017, eliminating differential treatment based on dual nationality and confining revocation to fraud-related grounds to avoid creating a secondary class of citizens. Under current law as of 2025, convictions for serious crimes do not independently trigger revocation unless linked to fraudulent concealment during the citizenship application; instead, such individuals may face criminal penalties, , or if permanent residents, but born or fully naturalized citizens retain citizenship absent proven acquisition fraud.

Dual and Multiple Citizenship

Canada has permitted dual and multiple citizenships since the enactment of the Citizenship Act on February 15, 1977, which explicitly allows individuals to retain Canadian citizenship upon acquiring nationality from another country, reversing the pre-1977 policy under which such acquisition automatically resulted in loss of Canadian status. This recognition extends to all forms of citizenship acquisition, including by birth, descent, or naturalization, provided the individual meets the criteria for Canadian nationality under the Act. No formal application or certificate is required for dual status, as it arises automatically when multiple states confer citizenship on the same person. Legally, dual citizens possess identical and obligations as solely Canadian citizens, including the right to reside, work, vote in federal elections, and access consular services abroad, without any diminution due to additional nationalities. However, they remain fully subject to Canadian laws, such as on worldwide earnings for residents and potential revocation of citizenship for , , or certain crimes, irrespective of other citizenships held. Public office eligibility, including parliamentary seats, is not restricted by dual status, though certain high-level positions like the historically imply undivided allegiance. Practical implications include heightened travel risks, as dual citizens must use a valid to enter or exit by commercial air, even if holding stronger documents from another country, to ensure recognition under Canadian law. Abroad, they may encounter obligations from the other state of citizenship, such as compulsory or exit taxes, which does not mitigate; for instance, during international conflicts, dual citizens have faced claims from non- governments despite Canadian protections. Taxation complexities arise for residents, who must report global income to the , potentially triggering absent treaties, while non-residents avoid this but lose certain benefits. advises dual citizens to research the other country's policies, as some states prohibit dual nationality and may strip it upon Canadian , leading to unintended loss.

Restrictions and Practical Challenges

Although Canada imposes no legal restrictions on its citizens acquiring or retaining multiple nationalities, dual or multiple citizenship can present practical challenges in , , family matters, and international obligations. Dual citizens must navigate differing policies of other countries, which may not recognize Canada's permissive stance on multiple citizenships, potentially leading to enforced claims or limited consular protections abroad. For travel, dual Canadian citizens are required to use a valid when entering or exiting by air, as non-Canadian passports are not accepted for this purpose; failure to comply can result in denial of boarding or entry. Special authorizations for entry without a Canadian passport are available only in limited circumstances, such as imminent flights from visa-exempt countries, but exclude certain dual nationals like those with U.S. citizenship and last no more than four days. Additionally, dual citizens may face exit bans, enhanced screenings, or mandatory use of a foreign in the other country of , complicating return travel to . In employment, particularly for or sensitive roles, dual citizenship often complicates obtaining security clearances, as applicants must disclose all citizenships and face scrutiny over potential foreign influences or divided loyalties; while not automatically disqualifying, it prompts case-by-case evaluations under guidelines assessing allegiance to . Professions such as , intelligence, or positions involving may effectively require of foreign citizenship to mitigate risks, limiting career options for dual nationals. Family and personal issues further arise, including risks of or custody disputes in countries that do not recognize dual , where local laws may prioritize exclusive parental rights or prevent removal of minors. Children born to dual citizens may automatically acquire foreign , necessitating registration and exposing them to obligations like in the other country, even if born in . Taxation poses another hurdle, with dual citizens potentially liable for reporting and payments in multiple jurisdictions; for instance, Canada-U.S. dual nationals must comply with complex cross-border filing requirements, though tax treaties help avoid full .

Special Cases and Exceptions

Royal Family Membership

Members of the , including the sovereign who serves as King or Queen of , do not automatically possess Canadian citizenship under the Citizenship Act. The monarch's role as in 's places the sovereign in a position distinct from that of citizens or subjects, rendering formal citizenship inapplicable; the King embodies the in right of but is not enumerated as a citizen within the legal framework of . Other members of the royal family, such as princes or duchesses, hold British citizenship by descent or birth but lack any statutory exemption or automatic grant of Canadian citizenship based on their lineage or proximity to the throne. (IRCC) has explicitly stated that no provisions in the Citizenship Act confer citizenship status to royal family members, requiring them to meet standard residency and naturalization criteria—like 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada over five years—if seeking to acquire it. This was underscored in discussions surrounding Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's temporary relocation to Canada in 2020, where their status as potential immigrants was treated under general rules despite royal privileges for entry and residence. While royal family members enjoy visa exemptions and facilitated access to Canada—reflecting the shared monarchical ties—they remain classified as foreign nationals for citizenship purposes, with no bespoke exceptions carved out in legislation. Historical precedents, such as Queen Elizabeth II's extensive visits and symbolic role, did not alter this; she resided in Canada indefinitely without citizenship, as the Crown's incarnation transcends nationality classifications. Proposals or symbolic gestures, like honorary recognitions, have occasionally surfaced but lack legal force for conferring citizenship.

Indigenous Status and Historical Ties

Enfranchisement under the , enacted in 1876, historically compelled Indigenous individuals to relinquish their status as "Indians" to acquire full , reflecting assimilationist policies aimed at integrating First Nations into broader Canadian society. This process, initially mandatory for certain educated or professional Indigenous men and later voluntary, resulted in the loss of treaty , reserve residency, and band membership in exchange for voting privileges and property ownership, though compulsory enfranchisement ended in 1961. The Canadian Act of 1947 granted citizenship to all British subjects, including Status Indians, effective January 1, 1947, but federal voting were withheld from registered Indians until a 1960 amendment to the Canada Elections Act. Post-1947, enfranchisement persisted as an option under the , severing status without revoking citizenship, until Bill C-31 in 1985 eliminated automatic enfranchisement for Indigenous women marrying non-Indigenous men—a discriminatory provision dating to earlier acts—and restored status to many affected women and their children. By this point, over 100,000 individuals had enfranchised since , often under duress from policies linking status to limited civic participation. These reforms decoupled Indian status from citizenship entitlements, affirming that status Indians hold full Canadian citizenship while retaining distinct federal protections under the . Today, Indian status—registration under the conferring access to reserves, potential tax exemptions, and health benefits—operates independently of Canadian , which is acquired via birth in , descent, or naturalization under the Citizenship Act. Individuals born outside but registered under the may apply for proof of if qualifying through parental ties, with status documentation serving as evidence of historical and legal connections to . First Nations maintain inherent rights to define band membership or citizenship codes, rooted in self-determination and treaties predating , though these do not alter obligations under federal nationality law. This duality underscores ongoing tensions between Crown-Indigenous relations, established through 11 numbered treaties (1871–1921) and unceded territories, and modern citizenship frameworks. Status revocation or acquisition does not impact citizenship status, preserving dual identities amid calls for First Nations jurisdiction over membership.

Stateless Persons, Foundlings, and Humanitarian Grants

Under section 4 of the Citizenship Act, a foundling—a deserted discovered in whose parents are unknown—is presumed to have been born in and thus acquires Canadian citizenship by birth, unless evidence to the contrary is presented within seven years of discovery if the child was under seven years old at the time. This presumption aligns with principles but includes a time-limited evidentiary window to allow for potential rebuttal based on parental or origin. For stateless persons, subsection 5(5) of the Citizenship Act mandates the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to grant citizenship to individuals born outside on or after June 19, 2019 (the date the provision came into force), who would otherwise be , have at least one Canadian citizen parent at birth, are under 23 years old (or, if 23 or older, have accumulated 1,095 days of physical presence in in the five years preceding application), and have no convictions for indictable offences, , or security-related crimes. Applicants must provide proof of , such as foreign government refusals of citizenship or UNHCR documentation, alongside evidence of the Canadian parent's citizenship. This targeted pathway, processing in approximately 13 months for a fee of $119.75, addresses gaps in descent-based citizenship that risk perpetual for children of abroad. Humanitarian grants fall under subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act, empowering the Minister to direct citizenship awards in cases of not covered by subsection 5(5), special and unusual hardship, or exceptional service to , without standard residency or language requirements. Such discretion has been exercised sparingly, often for long-term permanent residents facing barriers to or extraordinary circumstances like prolonged separation from family due to administrative errors, though decisions remain non-justiciable and opaque, with no statutory appeal mechanism. These grants prioritize empirical need over routine applications, reflecting 's commitments under the 1954 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, which it acceded to in 2013, though relies on ministerial judgment rather than automatic entitlement.

Recent Developments

Extensions and Deadlines for Descent Claims (2024-2025)

In response to ongoing court challenges declaring the first-generation limit (FGL) on by descent unconstitutional, the has repeatedly extended the suspension of its invalidity declaration to afford the federal government time to enact remedial legislation. The FGL, introduced in , restricts transmission of citizenship to only the first generation born abroad to a , excluding subsequent generations unless specific exceptions apply, such as service. These extensions directly impact descent claims by maintaining the status quo for applications under the , preventing an immediate influx of multi-generational claims while interim processing options are available. Key extensions in 2024-2025 include: an initial postponement to August 9, 2024, following the December 2023 ruling in Bjorkquist v. ; a further delay to December 19, 2024; extension to March 19, 2025; advancement to April 25, 2025, after a March 13 government request; and the most recent suspension until November 20, 2025, to accommodate reintroduction of reform bills post-election. Absent by November 20, 2025, the FGL's invalidity would take effect, potentially allowing broader descent claims without statutory limits, though administrative backlogs could delay processing. To bridge the gap, (IRCC) implemented expanded interim measures on March 13, 2025, enabling discretionary grants of citizenship to individuals affected by the FGL, irrespective of prior urgency criteria. Eligible applicants—typically second- or subsequent-generation descendants born abroad—must demonstrate a genuine connection to , such as parental ties or residency history, with decisions made on a case-by-case basis via application for a citizenship certificate or direct grant. No fixed application deadline applies under these measures, but submissions are encouraged promptly to align with potential legislative changes, including Bill C-3 (introduced June 5, 2025), which proposes conditional multi-generational descent if the Canadian parent resided in for at least 1,095 days before the child's birth. These developments stem from litigation by "Lost Canadians," whose claims highlight discriminatory aspects of the FGL under section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, though the government has prioritized measured reforms over outright abolition to manage administrative feasibility. Processing times for descent applications remain variable, averaging 5-12 months for standard proofs of citizenship, with interim grants subject to enhanced scrutiny. Applicants unaffected by the FGL face no altered deadlines, retaining eligibility for first-generation descent claims without interruption.

Bill C-3 Proposals for Multi-Generational Descent (2025)

Bill C-3, introduced in the on June 5, 2025, proposes amendments to the Act to extend citizenship by descent beyond the current first-generation limit for individuals born outside . Under existing rules, a Canadian citizen born abroad cannot transmit citizenship to their own child born abroad, except in limited cases such as where the parent was employed by the Canadian government. The bill aims to rectify this by allowing transmission to second and subsequent generations abroad, conditional on the transmitting parent demonstrating a substantial connection to , defined as at least 1,095 days (equivalent to three years) of physical presence in prior to the child's birth or adoption. This framework responds to court rulings challenging the first-generation limit and seeks to accommodate modern family mobility while prioritizing ties to . For applications post-enactment, the substantial connection test would apply to any born abroad seeking to confer on a born or adopted abroad, effectively enabling multi-generational descent only where each such parent has resided in for the required period. The proposals include retroactive provisions granting automatic citizenship to individuals who, but for the first-generation limit or pre-2009 legislative gaps, would have acquired citizenship at birth, including cases involving deceased parents or grandparents. Adopted ren abroad would qualify under the same criteria, though critics have argued that the connection requirement imposes undue barriers on families separated by circumstances beyond their control. The government positions these changes as balancing inclusivity with the preservation of citizenship's value through empirical links to Canadian soil. As of October 2025, remains under parliamentary consideration, with reviews addressing implementation details such as proof of and potential exemptions. If enacted, the reforms would mark a shift from a strict generational cutoff to a connection-based model, potentially affecting thousands of abroad by formalizing pathways for descendants while excluding those without demonstrated residency.

Controversies

Birth Tourism Exploitation of Jus Soli

Birth tourism refers to the practice where foreign nationals enter Canada on temporary visas, such as visitor visas, specifically to give birth on Canadian soil, thereby securing automatic Canadian citizenship for the child under the principle of enshrined in section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act. This grants the newborn full rights as a Canadian citizen, including access to public services, , and eventual pathways to sponsorship, despite the parents lacking or citizenship. The phenomenon exploits the unrestricted application of birthright citizenship, which applies regardless of parental immigration status, excluding only children of foreign or consular officers. Proponents of reform argue this creates an unintended "backdoor" to citizenship benefits without corresponding integration or contribution to Canadian society. Empirical evidence indicates occurs but is challenging to quantify precisely due to inconsistent tracking of non-resident births in vital statistics and hospital records. reported 356 births to non-residents nationwide in 2018, a figure drawn from provincial registries, though critics contend this undercounts the issue as many visitors are not flagged as non-residents at delivery. In , provincial data showed 256 such births in 2020-2021 and 245 in 2021-2022, with a noted post-pandemic uptick amid healthcare strains. A 2022 study of hospitals identified 147 birth tourists from 2016-2020, predominantly from (24.5%), with 77% citing citizenship acquisition as the primary motive; these cases often involved extended stays and utilization of neonatal intensive care units. Pre-COVID estimates in suggested record levels, with organized packages advertised online for 35,00035,000-50,000 covering flights, accommodations, and medical costs, targeting clients from and other nations. The practice imposes tangible costs on Canada's publicly funded healthcare system, even as non-residents are billed privately. Hospitals like those in , require deposits of $10,000 for vaginal deliveries and $16,000 for caesareans, yet complications can escalate expenses to $20,000 or more, with occasional unpaid bills straining provincial budgets. A 2020 analysis estimated over $18 million in private payments collected by one Vancouver-area hospital alone from such cases, but resource diversion— including maternity bed occupancy and staff time—contributes to wait times for Canadian residents amid broader system pressures. Public opinion polls reflect widespread concern, with 64% opposing unrestricted jus soli in a 2020 survey, viewing it as an abuse facilitating "anchor babies" who enable future parental immigration claims after age 18. Policy responses have been limited, with no legislative curbs enacted despite parliamentary scrutiny. The (IRCC) examined hospital data in 2022 but stopped short of defining or quantifying "birth tourism" officially, citing definitional ambiguities. In October 2025, the Conservative Party proposed amending the Citizenship Act to deny automatic citizenship to children of temporary residents or foreign workers, aligning with peer nations like and the that restrict jus soli. The Liberal government has resisted, with Justice Minister Sean Fraser stating in 2025 that existing laws suffice, though critics from think tanks like the Macdonald-Laurier Institute argue inaction perpetuates exploitation and incentivizes visa overstays. Revocation of citizenship for birth tourists remains unavailable, as jus soli grants irrevocable status absent fraud or security threats under section 10.

National Security and Revocation Debates

In 2014, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (Bill C-24), enacted by the Conservative government under Prime Minister , introduced provisions allowing the of from dual nationals convicted of , , , or participation in armed conflict against , provided the sentence was five years or longer or . These measures aimed to enhance by denaturalizing individuals deemed threats, building on existing grounds primarily limited to obtained by . Proponents argued that such actions served as a deterrent against and enabled expulsion, citing post-9/11 security imperatives and cases like the Toronto 18 plot, where four convicted terrorists faced potential . Opponents, including the Canadian Bar Association and advocates, contended that the law created a two-tiered system, discriminating against dual nationals in violation of section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by subjecting them to while single nationals remained protected. Critics also highlighted procedural flaws, such as ministerial discretion without mandatory , potentially leading to arbitrary application and risks, though the law prohibited revocation if it caused statelessness. During parliamentary debates, Liberal leader challenged the policy's constitutionality, asserting it undermined equal and failed to address root causes of through rehabilitation rather than banishment. Following the 2015 election, the Liberal government under passed Bill C-6 in 2017, repealing Bill C-24's dual-nationalist revocation framework for terrorism-related offenses and restoring uniformity by allowing revocation for any citizen convicted of such crimes only if the Minister determines it contravenes the national interest under section 10(2) of the Act, subject to Federal Court review. This shift emphasized , with cases now requiring evidence of ongoing threat, but has drawn criticism for weakening security tools; for instance, between 2015 and 2016, the government pursued 184 revocations primarily for rather than security grounds, at a higher rate than under Harper. Conservative voices, including in 2019 policy discussions, advocated reinstating stricter measures to strip from foreign fighters, arguing that reintegration burdens taxpayers and risks public safety without proportional deterrence. Ongoing debates center on high-profile cases, such as potential revocations for who joined , where courts have upheld procedural safeguards but rejected broad ministerial powers; a Federal Court ruling struck down aspects of the revocation process for denying under section 7 of the . Security experts note that revocation's efficacy is limited, as it applies post-conviction and excludes unconvicted threats or single nationals, prompting calls for complementary intelligence-sharing and border controls over denationalization. Despite these changes, the Citizenship Act retains revocation for convictions with sentences indicating non-rehabilitative risk, balancing security imperatives against Charter protections, though empirical data on among revoked individuals remains sparse due to few successful applications beyond .

Broader Impacts on Immigration Policy and Resource Strain

Canada's unconditional jus soli principle under the Citizenship Act grants automatic citizenship to individuals born on its territory, irrespective of parental immigration status, which has incentivized birth tourism and contributed to broader immigration inflows through subsequent family sponsorship pathways. This mechanism acts as a pull factor, enabling non-residents to secure citizenship for offspring and potentially anchor extended family migration, amplifying demands on public resources amid historically high admission levels. For instance, between 2023 and 2024, Canada experienced rapid population growth driven by over 1 million annual entrants via permanent and temporary streams, exacerbating integration challenges. Political proposals, such as Conservative amendments to limit jus soli to children of citizens or permanent residents, reflect efforts to curb these incentives and align nationality law with controlled immigration objectives. High immigration volumes, intertwined with expansive citizenship access, have strained housing and healthcare infrastructure, prompting policy recalibrations. In response to these pressures, the 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan reduced permanent resident targets to 395,000 in 2025—down from prior peaks—while aiming to shrink the temporary resident population to 5% of total residents by 2026, explicitly to alleviate burdens on housing supply and social services. Federal assessments indicate that unchecked inflows contributed to a housing gap projected at over 1 million units by 2030 without adjustments, with internal warnings from 2022 highlighting risks to affordability and service capacity. Healthcare systems, already facing wait times averaging 27.7 weeks for specialist treatment in 2023, have been further taxed by population surges outpacing infrastructure expansion. Public sentiment has shifted amid these strains, with 58% of in fall 2024 viewing levels as excessive, up from prior years, fueling demands for reforms to mitigate fiscal and social costs. Critics argue that undermines sustainability by embedding resource-intensive entitlements without reciprocal contributions, as evidenced by debates portraying as an illegitimate bypass of . While proponents of maintaining open policies cite economic benefits like labor force replenishment amid retiring cohorts—projected to drop the worker-to-retiree ratio to 3:1 by 2030—these are weighed against empirical strains, leading to a 2024 pivot toward restrictionism. Such dynamics illustrate how nationality provisions causally influence trajectories, prioritizing managed growth over unchecked expansion.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.